* The only thing you have to suffer
is Peter Klevius repeated naming of Peter Klevius. However, this
extremely strange behavior from someone calling himself "the extremely
normal" (except for his high IQ disability) you may rather accuse "the
scientific community" for. Ask yourself, if Peter Klevius published
analyses (since 1981) about evolution, brain/consciousness, sex
segregatio/heterosexual attraction, the modern social hermit "Homo
filius nullius", anthropology, sociology, etc., are at least on an
average level, then why is his name almost never mentioned in the
"scientific community"?!
According
to Peter Klevius, "Out of Africa" and "Flat Earth" "theories" are
identical twins - except that the former is politically correct, gets
more money, and isn't a gimmick.
Under the anti-science slogan "science is activism" the "pan-African" "out-of-Africa" delusion has become the ultimate scientific meltdown represented by afropologist* Chris Stringer** and others
*
'Afropologist'/'afropology' in Peter Klevius writings of course has
nothing to do with s.c. afro hair style (just check the pic of Chris
Stringer). It's also worth mentioning that Peter Klevius was quite
hopeful when Chris Stringer some years ago announced some sort of
hesitation re. "out of Africa". However, now when the evidence is
mounting against "out of Africa" he seems to retard back. Why?!
**
Peter Klevius of course excuses Chris Stringer and other afropologists
if their charlatanism is due to low IQ. But then the question arises:
Why are they given so much space in what is supposed to be a scientific
community?! And of course most of us know the answer, i.e. because it's
considered PC and all scientists have to first eradicate "racism" before
making "science" - which of course eliminates the very core of science.
However, this is also why Peter Klevius is the only one capable of
doing (mostly) unbiased science in evolutionary anthropology. And
although being an Atheist is a necessity for unbiased science, it's seen
by PC people as a grave flaw and morally despicable. He would never
have been allowed into the "afropologist community" camp no matter what
IQ, recommendations, credentials, books, papers, theses, original
groundbreaking research etc.. And the other side of the coin is of
course that when Peter Klevius realized it, he also saw it as his
responsibility to defend science, precisely because of what his brain,
knowledge and bias free situation offered. There can't be many anomalies
like Peter Klevius on the planet, right. However, although the Earth
isn't flat it's certainly PC and contains a lot of madness. Moreover,
Peter Klevius is certainly an extremly boring guy in the eyes of
mentalists, religionists, supranaturalists, psychologists etc., because
no one has ever seen him unstable or strange in any sense - incl.
himself. Peter Klevius to the world: 'Houston! We'we got a problem if
Peter Klevius isn't "normal".'
Peter
Klevius thinks Chris Stringer should have abandoned the hilarious "out
of Africa" charlatanism long ago. Most of us consider creationists funny
guys. However, Peter Klevius doesn't really see any difference compared
to afropologism. Moreover, Chris Stringers idea about Nenanderthals
having a "too big" visual cortex, which redued their capacity for social
interaction. This reasoning rests on a fallacy that could have easily
been corrected if Chris Stringer had read Peter Klevius theory (EMAH) on
how the brain works, i.e. that there's no qualitative difference
between visual or other forms of thinking. In other words, "visual
thinking" can be equally "social" as any other.
What really
triggered this lengthy post was when Alex Timmermann and his team
recently scandalously reported that they for half a year had kept an
expensive supercomputer busy by calculating 2 million years of human
evolution with the variables climate change and Homo speciation (as they
thought seen in fossils). However, with this approach they actually
tried to open an already open door called out of SE Asia. The simulation
gave data linking climate change to human evolution and speciation -
and that's exactly what Peter Klevius (for free) has said for more than a
decade. However, precisely because of the PC but hoax "out-of-Africa"
and populist 'climate change' (and not having read Peter Klevius) they
interpreted the result exactly opposite to what it showed.
Acknowledgement
to the magazine called Nature which erroneously and uncritically
publishes almost whatever rant as long it's "out-of-Africa. Only if
Nature arranges for the proper editing and proofreading to make the
presentation "appear more serious" may Peter Klevius consider allowing
Nature to publish it. However, the chance for this to happen is almost
nil - but do let me know if you're interested in real science! Yes,
admittedly Peter Klevius is equally negligible as Thomas Kuhn's
anomalies - to a point of no return when a period of cover up starts,
still trying to avoid Peter Klevius. If Peter Klevius out of SE Asia
theory is even close to reality - hence making "out-of-Africa"
impossible - then Nature has to completely rethink its position, because
it has had at least the same information available as has Peter Klevius
- meaning its editorial policy should have been much more critical
against many afropology papers it has published.
"Out of Africa" rests on a set of in-commensurable premises.
Its
genetic "evidence" for the past is based on contemporary DNA and locked
into the same closed room as the ridiculous idea of borders within a
borderless Africa, which rarely are open - but when opened, then in no
time over real borders brings early Homos over the Wallace line to Sahul
while only making it to Europe tens of thousands years later! And when
much older Homo sapiens show up in Eurasia, then it's explained away by
afropologists as: 'They didn't make it!'
Having not the slightest
clue about human movements between Eurasia and Africa, but a lot of
confused guesswork and admitting there was a lot of such traffic, while
stubbornly claiming that humans evolved* in Africa and only rarely
managed to step out over the vast and most of the time easily accessible
Sinai bridge to Eurasia, is just pathetic. It's almost like an
unconscious stand-up comedy show when afropologists with a serious face
tell people that humans reached Australia some 10,000 years before the
rest of the world outside Africa. And their explanation is in fact 100%
in line with Peter Klevius, i.e. that they followed routes where their
fossils now are under water - except of course that Peter Klevius boring
scientific explanation reverses the direction, and therefore lacks the
afropologists' punch line needed for real comedy.
*
When eventually "out of Africa" believers have to accept Peter Klevius
theory they will probably (and there are signs they already do) try to
stretch the concept of evolution to include minor effects of
hybridization and biogeography and local climate changes. But the
reality seems to be just the opposite, namely that perhaps all primates
and most mammals post paleocene may be evolutionarily traced to SE Asia.
The shaky concept of Afrotheria is just one example. No matter if we
are talking tarsiers, lemurs, New World Monkeys, or even elephants,
there's no firm ground under the feet of afropologists. And the
desperately comical idea of "monkeys twice rafting over the Atlantic
ocean to South America" is thoroughly dismissed not only by logic* but
also by a tiny fossil called Rooneyia. Also consider the hasty and
populist but completely unsupported naming of Afrotarsius.
*
Uncertainty about the climatological and tectonic effects on monkey
migration from north to south America ought first to be considered
before laughable but PC afro-guesswork.
The extreme
pro-out-of-Africa bias that is easily spotted all over the web, should
already in itself be a warning sign for anyone openminded. Similar bone
engravings as the even older Eurasian ones, when found in Africa are
immediately piled to the "Africa first in the world" heap and even
declared mathematical inventions, while no one has even thought about
doing such a stupid assessment about the Eurasian ones. And because of
this bias researchers and institutions happily create fanciful but
easily sold charlatan "science" from it. And a 73,000 bp "hashtag" in
Southern Africa is highly celebrated by afropologists and thrown at
ignorant viewers, while a similar but 500,000 bp "hashtag" from SE Asia
is somehow completely forgotten.
De-puzzling Homo evolution by releasing it from its political inprisonment on the African continent.
Peter Klevius answers the most stupid question in anthropology: Why are we now alone?
Because
population growth and boating skills etc. destroyed any lingering
hiding place for close relatives. When Homo sapiens, which evolved in SE
Asia, mixed with Neanderthals we got a hybrid that wiped out the
original Neanderthal but saved Homo sapiens with some minor issues and
favours - and it happened really fast. Let all the chimp "species"
freely mix with each other and they will in no time also "be alone".
Like humans, all dogs belong to the same species and with similar
Homogeneity. And like with humans there used to be more heterogenity
before. The very fact we are alone disproves in itself the widespread
out of Africa charlatanism. No bipedal omnivorous Homo species has ever
been able to hide every female many hundreds of thousands of years on a
continent. Only a certain type of islands can do the trick of repeated
evolutionary changes which are then pushed out and re-enter in
accordance with sea level (climate) changes. And the fact that Homos
before the upper paleolithic expansion, unlike e.g. rats, had a low
population density, made inbreeding and hybridization cause extinction.
Low in numbers and low in diversity, small groups interacted with each
other on a small and vanishing scale before a new brain setup, compare
the staggering IQ of Homo floresiensis compared to e.g. "Lucy" with
similar brain size, changed everything. Lucy was just one of many
African immigrant apes that originally came from SE Asia with minor
phenotype alterations during the trip and changing environment. And the
growth and sophistication of the Homo brain followed the old primate
formula which is best explained by Peter Klevius theory about repeated
island-mainland fluctuations.
And although, the much talked about
human chin is really nothing but the remnant of hybridization and a
retracting jaw (compare e.g. the human vestigial tail bone),
afropologists like Chris Stringer use it as a morphological trait for
defining humans. However, Europeans (e.g. the s.c. Cro-Magnon people)
have the most prominent chin because they had interbred with
Neanderthals equipped with a prominent protruding jaw. And with an IQ
far above Neanderthals, Cro-Magnon's predecessors had developed eating
habits that didn't need Neanderthal chewing gear. And of course,
Cro-Magnon people genetically came from East Asia and therefore had a
genetic preference for a skull more like e.g. the Liujiang man from
eastern China where the archaic Homos were already "mongolized", i.e.
having much less protruding lower face - not to mention the big
Jinniushan woman from northern China that Peter Klevius used 1992 as
connecting to the mongoloid Khoisan people in southern Africa of today.
UPDATE: A 2024 study says Liujiang was contemporary with Cro-Magnon. If true this doesn't alter Peter Klevius overall analysis a single bit, nor does it excuse the heavy Western bias against the Liujiang skull so clearly visible before. In fact, its archaic occipital bun, which Peter Klevius first saw as evidence of its antiquity, now fits perfectly in Peter Klevius hybridization analysis.
Afropologists
deny the existence of a better brain among Homo sapiens and therefore
try, in vain, to intellectually "humanize" Neanderthals by wrongly
pointing to cultural remains as created by Neanderthals when they are in
fact produced by Homo sapiens and Neanderthal "hybrids". Afropologist
Hublin is notorious in this respect.
Similarly, but more
cautiously, as mentioned above, some years ago Chris Stringer came up
with the ridiculous idea that the Neanderthals didn't manage to compete
with the human brain because the big eyes of Neanderthals demanded such a
big visual cortex that it left it with less room for "social IQ". As
you dear reader, are well aware, Peter Klevius is a real expert on
cognition and how the brain works (see e.g. EMAH). The "visual cortex"
in born blinds is fully employed. The misleading name is inherited from
the 19th century's classification of brain parts to perceived
psychological etc. categories, i.e. the fanciful thought that nature
reasons like humans. There's simply nothing stopping "social
interaction" because of where in the cortex the processes occure. An
image is an image no matter how it's produced.
Wednesday, September 09, 2020
Peter Klevius manual for building a human with AGI*
* Self-driving robots based on Peter Klevius theory below would not have to program their basic setup through living because they would utilize the totality of information on the web. And immediately after being connected they would start to individualize based on the additional experience each one gets from its particular moving origo.
The Verbal Fallacy of Language
Warning: Your research may be repossessed!
You commit scientific (and
moral) fraud if you learn from Peter Klevius without referring/citing
him as you normally do with other sources.
Peter Klevius is very serious when asking you to consider your level of bigotry and hypocrisy.
It's not very scientific, is it, to dismiss Peter Klevius as an
"islamophobe" (i.e. Human Rights defender) and "a random blogger", especially when he most likely has
a better brain and less bias* than you.
* Are you totally independent when it comes to economy, career etc., and do you lack religious, political etc. dogmas?
Peter Klevius 1994 EMAH* theory on consciousness and how the brain works.
* EMAH stands for the Even More Astonishing Hypothesis which alludes to Francis Crick's book The Astonishing Hypothesis. A copy of the first draft was immediately sent to Crick as a letter + a floppy disc with the same content in ASCI.
An other similarly stupid question: Did climate change affect the evolution of humans?
Of
course, how else would they have come out from the SE Asian island
archepilago?! You don't need a super-computer to understand this, right.
Because of the PC "out-of-Africa" entrapment, "research" using it as a
platform, becomes ever more comical - especially when you combine the
pop-words 'out of Africa' and 'climate change' for getting research
grants to waste for absolute nosense.
A
third similarly stupid question is whether we still evolve - which is a
conflation between evolutionary speciation and hybridization.
Our
species originally evolved in island isolations and has today stopped
evolving due to a global "island" isolation. Only sending women into
space for mmany hundreds of thousands of years could produce new
evolutionary steps. Or we could do it genetically in a laboratory in no
time at all. However, these options are outside the scope of
paleoanthropology.
We don't even have to bother about species but
rather on distinct evolutionary steps that only happens in longtime
isolation. The history of (hetero)sexual* life on Earth is in essence
the history of cracking continents** - of which SE Asian archepilago is
the latest main remnant.
*
Although most people understand that for natural reproduction a man's
sperm has to be delivered into a woman, only Peter Klevius seems to
understand that for this to happen there must be some sort of non
cultural/non-romantic heterosexual attraction at work, which
distinctively constitutes a basic natural difference between the sexes.
This simple fact has been heavily distorted due to cultural/religious
taboos
** Do realize that cracking continents also include the
creation of lakes etc. evolutionary "sea islands" of which some turned
into freshwater "islands". Adapting to these slow changes created much
of the diversity we see in the fossil records long before tectonics had
settled to the modern form, including the whole of pleistocene. Although
the Panama isthmus closed (perhaps partially starting already in
Miocene/Pliocene) and the Mediterranean emptied and filled during the same time, most of evolutionary interest happened in SE Asia due to
sea level fluctuations - and perhaps sntil now unknown tectonics
etc.
Hybridization is all the time ongoing but can't
create main evolutionary steps. So no, we won't evolve anymore unless
someone manages to isolate a quite considerable anount of women for up
to a million years or so. Scientists who obviously haven't read Peter
Klevius,have been puzzled by the fact that they see two opposite trends
in evolution, i.e. one that is extremely long term, and an other where
evolution seemingly happens in no time. Applied to hominid evolution
(and most other terrestials) this makes complete sense with Peter
Klevius' SE Asian volatile island/mainland theory.
Out-of-Africa rests on these pillars of sand:
1
Modern DNA which doesn't prove anything about its origin. We don't have
ancient enough DNA from Africa, so it's pure and totally uncritical
guesswork to assume that older parts of modern Khoisan genome arose in
Africa. Their phenotype and fossil records tell exactly the opposite
story.
2 A tiny pile of ambiguous fossils - just contrary to the
ear deafening mantra about the "abundance of fossil evidence in Africa".
We simply lack crucial transitional fossils showing the emergence of
Homo or Homo sapiens in Africa. And we will never find them there!
However, we found them in SE Asia - but afropologists seem not
interested or try to hide them behing childish "rafting theories".
Out of Southeast Asia rests on these pillars of unbiased logic on the bedrock of hard data:
1 Ancient DNA and fossils (Denisovan), all the way between SE Asia and Siberia, point towards SE Asia - not Africa.
2
All transitional (not to be conflated with hybrids) Homo fossils ever
found are in SE Asia (e.g. Homo floresiensis and Homo luzonensis) and
southern China (Longlin Cave and the s.c. Red Deer Cave people at
Maludong), which are dated to 17,830-11,500 BP. Like Homo floresiensis,
the fossils exhibit a mix of archaic and modern features and represent a
late survival of an archaic human species. Evidence shows large deer
were cooked. Darren Curnoe:'The new find hints at the possibility a
pre-modern species may have overlapped in time with modern humans on
mainland East Asia. Why did they survive so late? And why only in
tropical southern China?
Peter Klevius: The timing of the
fossils may hint at them representing the last delivery from the SE
Asian cradle of evolution via the landbridge that the last glacial
maximum created. And the most recent fossil is close to the turbulent
climate change around Younger Dryas.
The Maludong femur might
represent a relic, tropically adapted, archaic population that survived
relatively late in this biogeographically complex, highly diverse and
largely isolated region.' Darren Curnoe admitted his work is
'controversial' and said some of his colleagues are 'simply unable to
accept the possibility that archaic looking bones could be so young'.
However, when Homo floresiensis was found, the same kind of comments
were made because this species looks a lot like Australopithecus
skeletons, like Lucy, that lived in Africa 3-4 million years ago.
Peter
Klevius: However, Lucy had an ape skull and an ape brain whereas the
features of the skull of Homo floresiensis literally forced the
scientific community of afropologists, after long infighting - to accept
it as a Homo.
Darren Curnoe: There were similar remains at
Denisova Cave, although the bones are 30,000 to 40,000 years older than
at Maludong. They've recovered evidence for multiple archaic species
like the Neanderthals and Denisovans in the same cave layers as modern
human dating to about 50,000 year ago. And in a slightly older unit in
the cave they have found Neanderthal, Denisovan and possible Homo
erectus bones, again together from a single layer. Within this context,
and the Hobbit from Indonesia, our finds don't look so out of place
after all. This is exciting because it shows the bones from Maludong,
after 25 years of neglect, still have an incredible story to tell. There
may have been a diversity of different kinds of human living until very
recently in southwest China.'
But why only in tropical southwest China?
Darren
Curnoe: 'Yunnan Province today has the greatest biodiversity of plants
and animals in the whole of China. It is one of 20 floristic endemic
centres as a result of its complex landscape of high mountains, deep
valleys, rift lakes and large rivers. The region around Maludong is also
on the northern edge of tropical Southeast Asia and many species found
there today are very ancient indeed.'
Peter Klevius: No, the main
reason is of course that it tropically connects to the "cradle of
evolution" in the SE Asian volatile tropical archipelago.
Darren
Curnoe: 'The Maludong femur might represent a relic, tropically adapted,
archaic population that survived relatively late in this
biogeographically complex, highly diverse and largely isolated region.'
The thigh bone resembles those found in older species of early human like Homo habilis and early Homo erectus.
3
Gibbon apes are the closest to where the human gait evolved from. The
oldest gibbon fossil is 13 Mya and found in Asia. Most extant gibbons
live in SE Asia and possess a variety that stands in sharp contrast to
apes in Africa of which there are only really two types, i.e. gorillas
and chimps.
4 SE Asian volatile tropical islands (shrinking and
enlarging) and fluctuating mainland connections offered the perfect
evolutionary laboratory for the human lineage as well as for many other
mammals.
5 Although the s.c. Homo erectus appeared early in
pleistocene, the estimated genomic time for the emergence of Homo
sapiens is well in line with the onset of the later pleistocene climate
oscillations.
6 The actual spread of Homo sapiens only makes
sense as coming out of SE Asia - contrary to the strange proposal that
Homo sapiens suddenly made it out of Africa and reached Australia in
almost no time at all.
7 The first fully modern Homo sapiens were
big skulled mongoloids, which explains the racial pattern the spread
produced. The Liujiang skull is fully modern but possesses a tiny
remnant of an occipital bun, which fact really underscores its old age
despite its modern East Asian features. However, despite the fact that
it can't be younger than 68,000 bp but most probably much older, doesn't
hinder afropologists dismissing it because 'it looks too modern'.
UPDATE: A 2024 study says Liujiang was contemporary with Cro-Magnon. If true this doesn't alter Peter Klevius overall analysis a single bit, nor does it excuse the heavy Western bias against the Liujiang skull so clearly visible before. In fact, its archaic occipital bun, which Peter Klevius first saw as evidence of its antiquity, now fits perfectly in Peter Klevius hybridization analysis.
8 Most fossils still called Homos do not necessarily belong to the Homo sapiens lineage at all. We simply don't know.
9
All s.c. Homo fossils in Africa are remnants of earlier out of SE Asia
migrations. Some represent new species and some hybrid ones.
10
The out-of-Africa mantra has been so successful that many researchers
automatically assume Africa as a starting point not only about Homos but
also re. other primates and other mammals which clearly evolved outside
Africa. Most of perceived African animals are immigrants from Eurasia.
The concept of Afrotheria is more based on wishful guesswork than on
facts.
Evolution of bipedalsim and a bigger brain
Bipedalism
Bipedalism
didn't lead to a bigger brain. The Sahelanthropus type of bipedal apes
had been aroung in Eurasia for at least 10 Myr before a larger brain
setup came around.
It was actually the repeated insular shrinking
of the brain during pleistocene that caused it to perform better on
narrowing islands. Only those who managed to keep the same intelligence
while their head shrunk were able to survive. And when the islands again
expanded, then the more open savannah like landscape favoured better
bipedalism - and a route to the mainland and/or neighboring island(s).
All
of this were in SE Asia mixed with mainland migration, back migration
and hybridization, which produced additional evolutionary tweeks outside
the range seen on the mainland. In other words, firstly there were the
evolutionary steps that could only be achieved in longterm isolation,
and secondly there were additional changes in the island-mainland
interactions connected to the former.
As a consequence,
according to Peter Klevius evolution formula*, you need to distinguish
between evolution, i.e. island isolation that takes a long time, and
hybridization, which happens in no time at all. The former brought
something truly new, whereas the latter only contributed minor
alterations. Heterosexual reproduction is per se already a form of basic
hybridization. And due to environmental and/or other factors a species
may split into "subspecies" but when they do encounter each other, they
can still breed and produce fertile offspring. However, such a
"subspecies" is something very different from speciasion in longlasting
complee isolation which can produce radically new changes. And when
these new species eventually get in contact with old relatives they may
or may not be able to hybridisize. 
*
This formula also seems to fit most land based quadropeds from Pangea
to today because the evolutionary corridors were always changing.
However, after some 200 Ma the cradle of evolution laboratory in the SE
Asian archipelage has been the main producer of new evolutionary
lineages, quite contrary to the mainstream out of Africa noise most
peope are blinded by.
Paleoanthropology
is a branch of paleontology and anthropology which seeks to understand
the early development of anatomically modern humans, a process known as
hominization, through the reconstruction of evolutionary kinship lines
within Hominidea working from biological and cultural evidence.
Fake anti-science nomenclature introduced by afropologists
According to Peter Klevius, Hominoidea is the only acceptable classification of today's confused and PC biased nomenclature about human evolution. All sub-groups in use today are not only useless but also misleading. And why confine Homos together with chimps? Moreover, the made up Hominidae, which has no scientific foundation or even likelihood, is the fancy word afropologists came up with to get rid of the SE Asian apes like e.g. gibbons. Afropologists cherry pick among extinct (both fossils and predicted ones based on nomenclatura) and extant "species". Calling chimps "our closest living relatives" (and often even leaving out 'living') is extremely misleading and confusing for most people. Moreover, every paleoanthropologistHominidae or hominid, according to afropologists, has two subfamilies, Ponginae (orangutans) and Homininae (African apes, including the human lineage).
The Hominini form a taxonomic tribe of the subfamily Homininae ("hominines") includes the extant genera Homo (humans) and Pan (chimpanzees and bonobos), but excludes the genus Gorilla (gorillas). Alternatively relating to, or being a member of a family (Hominidae) of erect, bipedal, primate mammals that includes recent humans together with extinct ancestral and related forms and in some recent classifications the gorilla, chimpanzee, and orangutan.
Bipedalism preceded other human like traits by at least 12 millions years.
Danuvius guggenmosi
Danuvius
guggenmosi is an extinct species of apes that lived 11.6 Mya in Germany
in an area that was a woodland with a seasonal climate. A male specimen
was estimated to 31 kg, and two females 17 and 19 kg. It is the first
Miocene ape with preserved long bones which can be used to reconstruct
the limb anatomy and thus the locomotion. It had adaptations for both
hanging in trees (suspensory behavior) and walking on two legs
(bipedalism), while present-day great apes lack this abililty. Danuvius
thus had a method of locomotion, called "extended limb clambering",
which is close to extant gibbons. Therefore one may hypothize there has
been extinct gibbons and/or last common ancestor with similar
capabilities. Gibbons are expert on walking directly along tree branches
as well as using arms for suspending themselves. Danuvius had a broad
chest and is the first recorded Miocene ape to have had the diaphragm
located in the lower chest cavity, as in Homo, indicating an extended
lower back and a greater number of functional lumbar vertebrae, meaning
the normal curvature of the human spine, moving the center of mass over
the hips and legs, which also strongly implies habitual bipedal
activity.
The robust finger and hypertrophied wrist and elbow
bones indicate a strong grip and load bearing adaptations for the arms.
The legs also show adaptations for load-bearing, especially at the
hypertrophied knee joint. There was likely limited ankle loading, and
the ankle would have had a hinge-like function, being most stable if
positioned perpendicularly to the leg as opposed to in great apes.
Moreover, Danuvius was likely able to achieve a strong grip with its big
toes, unlike modern African great apes, which would have allowed it to
grasp onto thinner trees. Adaptations for load bearing in both the arm
and leg joints to this degree is unknown in any other primate.
The
total anatomy of the limbs suggests Danuvius was capable of a seemingly
unique manner of locomotion called "extended limb clambering", and
likely walked along mildly inclined tree branches with its foot directly
laid onto the branch, using its strong big toes for grasping. The
strong knee joint would have provided balance while walking by
counteracting torques, and the strong hands would have carried out a
similar function during suspension or palm-walking. Extended limb
clambering emphasizes knee extension and lordosis, as well as the
suspensory mechanisms together constitute a precursor to obligate
bipedalism seen in human ancestors.
Shivapithecus
A
10.8 Myr upper jawbone of Shivapithecus was found in Gujarat, India.
Sivapithecus was about 1.5 m in body length and the shape of its wrist
and general body proportions suggest that it spent a significant amount
of its time on the ground, as well as in trees. It had large canine
teeth, and heavy molars, suggesting a diet of relatively tough food,
such as seeds and savannah grasses.
Kapi ramnagarensis
Kapi
ramnagarensis is an extinct genus of gibbons that lived about 13.8-12.5
Mya in India. Extant gibbons walk successfully on a flexible foot on
the ground and in the trees. Early humans could have walked successfully
on a 'flexible' flat foot, similar to modern day gibbons. The arched
'rigid' foot of modern humans – thought to have appeared approximately
1.8 million years ago – is best adapted for upright walking, but early
humans once had 'flexible' feet and could have walked on the ground
earlier.
Rudapithecus
Rudapithecus
is an ape which inhabited northern Hungary 10 Mya, and which fossilized
pelvis shows it didn’t knuckle-walk like chimps or gorillas. It moved
among branches holding its body upright, and unlike modern great apes,
it had a flexible lumbar, which gave it the ability to stand upright
like humans and walk efficiently on two legs. Rudapithecus looked more
like humans, whose long, flexible lower backs make it easy to stand
upright. Carol Ward: “If that's what our ancestors were like, then that
transition to walking on two feet wasn't really that big a deal. We just
specialized at doing it. We didn't have to have a fundamental change in
how we moved. Everybody has seen the drawing of the knuckle-walker that
is slowly standing upright. That's what we always thought happened
because all we had to look at was modern animals. But now, looking at
the fossil record, we realize we have the wrong picture of what the
ancestral animals would have been like. And this is a really big piece
of the puzzle.“
Trachilos footprints
The
6 Myr Trachilos footprints from Crete show clearly bipedal-like
characteristics. However, when Gierliński and his team tried to publish
the study, they received harsh criticism due to the findings going
against the theory of Homos and other bipedals evolving in Africa.
Even though a bin may contain a lot of information - it's not its origin!
Instead
of only keeping digging in the African bin, Peter Klevius suggests
connecting the real Homo dots, wherever they pop up in the fossil
record, and then connect them not to Africa, but to a much more likely
place of origin in SE Asian tropical and volatile archipelago.
And
in fact, we already have enough Homo fossils and artifacts to that aim -
only problem they're all dismissed because they don't follow the
out-of-Africa catechism.
Also, you need to understand that Homo
erectus has nothing to do with Homo sapiens - just look at the skull and
browridge, and recall Chris Stringer's chin!
Here are some
fossils in SE Asia and China which do the trick - and they are all
within the timeline of modern humans, yet they all exhibit old traits
that fit
a SE Asian evolutionary patter:
1. Homo floresiensis
shows that processes unknown to Africa were rooted on the "wrong side"
of the Wallacea line. This means that ape to Homo transition must have
happened all over the SE Asian archipelago. Afropologists have tried to
"explain" it as insular drarfing of Homo erectus which somehow (sic)
rafted to Flores 1-2 Mya. This is however absolutely nonsensical when
taking into account the skeletal features of Homo floresiensis. Peter
Klevius doubts there's a single afropologist who'd dare to risk their
reputation by publicly stating that Homo floresiensis peculiar limbs
etc. skeletal characteristics could be convincingly seen as coming from
Homo erectus - aspecially considering the total lack of concensus about
how to evem define the latter.
2. Homo luzonensis, on the other hand, had mainland access, and probably belonged to a branch that also included Homo sapiens.
3
And the perhaps most important one (because it showed up on mainland)
hasn't even been rewarded a name by the "scientific community" even
though it's atreasurethrow of information with almost complete cranial
and post-cranial data.
At the time of cooling, mainland routes
appeared from the receding sea and became grassy savannah-like "training
corridors" for stuttering tree-climbing bipeds - and inroads for earler
bipeds who then sooner or later got stuck at the next warming period.
We evolved from climbing apes in SE Asia and then learnt to walk and run on now drowned streches of savannah, as bipedal apes had already done for millions of years.
Do note how the increase in fluctuations of later Pleistocene coincide with the emergence of Homo sapiens.
Late pliocene and the whole of pleistocene offered a variable cooling trend that accelerated in the latter part of pleistocene.
Peter Klevius predicts you'll never see fossils like H. floresiensis in Africa!
Multiple
dwarfing events made our brain setup possible. What took some time was
to transfer this arboreal brain on top of true bipedalism.
During
Pleistocene, sea level oscillations became much more frequent, and
during its last 600 Kyr we got the pattern of interglacials we still
live in.
Dmanisi people would have easily outperformed Homo
floresiensis when it comes to walking/running. However, when it comes to
truly human characteristics of the brain the latter showed the way.
If
we put aside fancy and childish "rafting theories"* then Homo
floresiensis on the "wrong side" of the Wallace line, represents a truly
independent line of Homo evolution.
*
The most ridiculous part of OOA is how difficult it is to explain why
omnivorous bipedals with the best brain ever on the planet, had such
enourmous problem stepping out of Africa through a 200 km wide
landbridge, even including different internal biospheres as if two
different shorelines wouldn't be enough for substantiation. Moreover, no
one disputes that humans have always followed shorelines with success.
All forms of apes and Homos ultimately came from SE Asia - and ended up as "puzzling" fossils in Africa, and lived side by side with other species - to the delight of religious creationists Africa therefore lacks transitional forms.
During
the time that H. heidelbergensis allegedly lived, closely related Homo
populations periodically split up, reorganized and bred with outsiders,
without necessarily operating as distinct biological species. Mating
among different H. sapiens groups started some 500 Kya eventually
producing modern humans as we see today.
Humans have a high and
rounded brain case, with a small brow, a chin on the lower jaw and a
slimmer bone structure, says Stringer. Neanderthals, by comparison, have
a longer, lower skull, with a larger nose, brow and no chin.
"Humans
have a clearly distinct skeletal shape from Neanderthals," says
Stringer. "These differences suggest that there was a separate evolution
for hundreds of thousands of years."
On the other hand, older
modern human remains have a bigger brow, bulkier teeth and more robust
skeletons. And the closer in age the remains are to the mystery
ancestor, the difference in features is less pronounced.
After
the two species evolved from a common ancestor, they became unmistakably
separate in both appearance and DNA. But at the same time, before
Neanderthals went extinct 40,000 years ago, they did many of the same
things as humans. They hunted the same large game, had burial rituals,
used similar tools and even interbred.
Homo floresiensis brain evolution perfectly fits the timescale of Homo sapiens.
Some reflections about extant gibbon apes
Siamang
gibbon can be up to 150 cm, and the face is mostly hairless, except for
a thin mustache. It inhabits the forest remnants of Sumatra Island and
the Malay Peninsula, and is widely distributed from lowland forest to
mountain forest—even rainforest—and can be found at altitudes up to 3800
m. It lives in groups of only four individuals on average, consisting
of a monogamous mating pair and offspring, and sometimes also a subadult
who usually leaves after attaining the age of 6–8 years.
The
siamang rests for more than half of its waking period, followed by
feeding, moving, foraging, and social activities, like grooming others
or to play. Grooming is one of the most important social interactions
among family members. Grooming takes place between adults earlier in the
day; the adults groom the juveniles later in the day. Adult males are
the most involved in grooming. Siamangs are a very social species of
primates and exhibit a variety of tactile and visual gestures, along
with actions and facial expressions to communicate and increase social
bonds within their family group.
Grooming frequency between males
and females has been found to correlate to copulation frequency, as
well as bouts of aggression. Pairs copulate over four to five months at
intervals of two to three years. The peak of their reproductive activity
is when fruit is most abundant. Dorsoventral copulation is the most
common type in siamangs, where the female is squatting and the male
hangs by his arms and grips the female with his legs
Mated pairs
produce loud, well-patterned calling bouts, which are referred to as
duetting. These calls advertise the presence and status of a mated pair.
Newly formed pairs spend more time singing than an established pair.
Advertising the presence of a strong bond is advantageous in territorial
defense. Siamang duetting differs from other species because it has a
particularly complex vocal structure. Four distinct classes of
vocalizations have been documented: booms, barks, ululating screams, and
bitonal screams. Females typically produce long barks and males
generally produce bitonal screams, but both sexes have been known to
produce all four classes of vocalizations.
How the northern* Homo sapiens "mongolized" and "intellectualized" Homo sapiens globally
Although
Homo sapiens with a modern* brain setup evolved in island SE Asia, its
volume was extremely small (compare Homo floresiensis). However, after
mainland connection it moved all over the place and ended up in the cold
but fat and protein rich north where it mixed with big skulled and cold
adapted "mongoloid" relatives. The combination of the new brain setup
and huge skulls where to fill it, was the reason behind the intellectual
"explosion" Svante Pääbo and Peter Klevius have seen (although Pääbo in
2022 seems to cowardly now hiding behind the "rachet effect"*) as
evident, yet the rest seem to dodge. However, we do know that a 55,000
bp skull found in Mideast was modern but pygmy size. We also know that
the oldest modern "Africans" were small skulled s.c. negroid pygmies and
mongoloid Khoisan people. So the pattern seems to be that "recent out
of Asia" Homo sapiens had already occupied much land before the big
skulled (i.e. near average of today's humans) from the north flooded the
world. The consequence of the following mix is the phenotypical race
pattern we see in modern times. The fact that the oldest modern genes in
Africa belong to a mongoloid, i.e. cold adapted phenotype, may, in
accordance with Peter Klevius theory, easily be explained as negritos
being mongolized without much size increase, and some of them (the
smarthest small brained) ending up in Africa where there alredy were
African "negritos" i.e. s.c. pygmies. And the reason Khoisan harbour
older genes is simply because they got the archaic genes of the people
who carried the new brain setup, which fact also explains why Khoisan
people managed to survive for quite some time in big parts of Africa
while the pygmies, which still lacked the updated brain were more
restricted to the tropics. The African negroid phenotype is a recent
phenomenon - on pair with white skinned Caucasians - and started with
modern Eurasians moving in from the north. And later on when Eurasian
cattle and farming people in a larger scale moved down via Mideast
around Yamnaya time, they also mixed with pygmies and Khoisan, and
perhaps some archaics, hence creating the stock of the s.c. Bantu
expansion which constitutes the most common phenotype variety, i.e. some
sort of now "average African" or "black" African.
*
The Primate brain evolved in steps in the volatile SE Asian
archepilago. So we are just the last step. However, if we shouldn't have
spread so successfully, an even better brain setup would have emerge
during the next iceage. And we can't be sure whether the last glacial
maximum also contributed to a better brain. Did the Deer Cave people
with their small bodies but some 1350 cm2 brain volume give us an
additional intelligence kick?
Btw,
Peter Klevius uses to call himself belonging to the racial "bastard
belt" that is often called "Caucasian" just as the African "bastard
belt" is called "negroid". Luckily, Peter Klevius' theory doesn't give
his own "bastardness" any importance. The facts instead point to pygmy
like SE Asians and mongoloized (cold adapted) Eurasians. However, if
Peter Klevius' theory had pointed to his own "race", then he wouldn't
only have been neglected but also hated as a "white supremacist racist",
right.
Peter Klevius warning to young students interested in anthropology and evolution. Keep away from afropologists, or you inevitably end up embarrassing yourself in the "out-of-Africa" charlatanism!
Peter Klevius wrote 1992 (based on his general evolution theory published 1981):
In Resursbegär* (Demand for Resources) Peter Klevius (1992:28, ISBN 9173288411) wrote under the chapter Human Evolution:
*
Peter Klevius most advanced research and scientific investigations have
all happened outside academia and/or paid work - meaning Peter Klevius
was excuded from internal information. In other words, Peter Klevius has
since his teens gathered info from alternative sources such as books
and magazines from libraries etc.. This might deceive someone to believe
that the quality of Peter Klevius work then must have suffered.
However, quite the contrary. Every published paper plus correspondence
since 1979 is there to be seen by anyone. 1990-1992 while the book was
written (and checked and approved by Wittgenstein's successor at
Cambridge, G. H. von Wright), Peter Klevius not only subscribed to the
expensive Nature magazine, but also heavily utilized other scienticfic
magazines he could read for free in specialized magazine shops and
libraries - i.e. the "free web" before internet. 1992 Peter Klevius
father-in-law said: 'Ok, you're proud of the book now but after 20 years
you gonna laugh at what you wrote.' And Peter Klevius almost believed
him. However, now 30 years later the text seems more useful than ever.
'Already
during the Paleocene 60 million. years ago, some primates, among them
the still-living tarsier, had evolved. From relatives of these, it is
believed that the anthropoids who lived in Africa and southeast Asia
25-38 million years ago, originated. These would eventually give rise to
humans as well as apes. The genus Homo presents itself for the first
time more than 2 million years ago as Homo habilis (the handy one) who
could, among other things, build huts and use fire. The brain size of
700-800 cm3, begins to distinguish her more markedly from the apes and
the first signs of the so-called. Broca's speech center can be
discerned.
Pleistocenum, i.e. the ice age interrupted by
interglacials, ranged from about 2 million years ago until the Holocene
which includes the current interglacial that began about 10,000 years
ago at the time of the first plant and animal domestication. The
previous interglacial occurred some 120,000 years ago and there has been
speculation as to why animal and plant domestication didn't take off
already back then.
In northern China, an almost complete skeleton
was found in 1984 who died about 280,000 years ago. The find was
remarkable in that its large cranium capacity, 1,400 cm3 was not
expected to occur among Homo erectus that lived during the Middle
Pleistocene and that the cranium is large even if classified as Homo
sapiens. Anatomically completely modern human has an average brain
volume of about 1,400 cm3 and is estimated to have appeared between
50-100,000 years ago and therefore we can state that human's large brain
volume with a reassuring margin preceded the first civilizations and
that she for perhaps 2 million years would have been capable of building
huts and fireplaces as well as using language.
It is against
this background that we should consider the cultural change that
occurred as recently as 6,000-10,000 years ago and which today at an
accelerating pace is transforming our living space and ourselves. This
means that modern human, biologically exactly like ourselves and with
the same brain volume, has for most of its existence lived in more or
less static social systems born out of its own evolution and interrupted
only by continuously or sporadically occurring non-URB-related
ecological adjustments. A world where expanded demands for resources and
the building of spacecraft previously could not take root. A world
where most things had their given place through the weight and
expediency of tradition. A world where creativity and invention probably
rarely occurred.
'Civilization' means 'ordered society' but
rests on the dynamics of expanded demands for resources, thereby
producing creativity and investment that constitute anomalies against
this order (P. Klevius 1992).
There are several delicate
cultural-anthropological prejudices which have got a strong grip on the
public. One is the view about human aggression as an irresistable
negative biological force which has to be released. To argue this while
simultaneously proposing channelled aggressivity for the purpose of
mitigating its effect, in fact, means that one culturally creates and
stimulates patterns of negative behavior. Same species violence is, like
expanded demand for resources, a learned behavior. The organized form
of violence, i.e. war, seems not to be older than expanded demands for
resources. They are likely intimately connected.
So called
civilized societies can be described as dynamic, hence contrasting
against the more static appearance of the economic setting (lack of
investment) of e.g. hunter-gatherers.
A re-classification of human societies departng from C. Levi-Strauss idea about "warm" and "cold" societies (Klevius 1992):
A Without 'extended demands for resources' (EDFR).
B Affected by EDFR but still retaining a simplistic, "primitive" way of life.
C Civilized with EDFR
These categories are, of course, only conceptual. Applied to a conventional classification the following pattern appears:
1 The primitive stage when all were hunter/gatherers (A, according to EDFR classification).
2 Nomads (A, B, C).
3 Farmers (B, C).
4 Civilized (C).
As
a consequence EDFR is here used as a concept tied to civilization (and
its preliminary stages) The above also suggests a critique against our
conventional conception of a simplistic connection between intelligence
and performance as exemplified by C. Popper's naive scenario of a World
1-3 transition of human cultural development (P. Klevius 1992).
(Implications
of this view can be seen in Peter Klevius theory of mind EMAH, The Even
More Astonishing Hypothesis, which deals with the mind/body problem and
the closing gap between not only humans and other living things but
also humans and machines - and the world as a whole).
Here's the last part of the chapter Khoi, San and Bantu (in Demand for Resources, Klevius 1992):
The
concept of San includes the three groups ! King! Xu and G!wi, all of
whom have their own closely related but independent languages. Of these
groups, it is G!wi that can be assumed to be closest to the classical
collector/hunter society, although really no groups today are found in
the cultural patterns that still existed in the 50-60s. An appreciation
of the traditional features of the cultural pattern of San (conventional
group 1, URB group A) includes the absence of domestication, loose
cohesion, unfixed, non-hierarchical decision-making order, and virtually
non-existent material status (exceptions include, for example, hunting
weapons and prey before the inevitable distribution).
Patricia
Draper in the 1960s "The Harvard !Kung Bushmen Study Project" compared
different sex roles between classic hunter-gatherers and !Kung societies
connected to the surrounding Bantu societies. She found that "that
!Kung society may be the least sexist of any we have experienced" and
that this is evident in "women's subsistence contribution and the
control women retain over the food they have gathered, the lack of
rigidity in sex-typing of many adult activities including domestic
chores and aspects of child socialization; the cultural sanction against
physical expression of aggression; the smaller group size; and the
nature of the settlement pattern." She furthemore notes that
"authoritarian behavior is avoided by adults of both sexes." These
characteristics were all hampered in the sedentary groups.
A
pioneer in demonstrating how little work San gathers-hunters put into
food sourcing and housing was Richard Lee, who in 1963 studied the among
anthropologists now well-known Dobe Base Camp 12. He lived with them,
methodically noting everything he saw, measuring and weighing both food
and people, taking time on everything they did and the result of his,
and later also the work of others can be summed up in the words of
Marshal Sahlin: "1f the affluent society is one where all the people's
material wants are easily satisfied this is the first affluent society."
He continues: "The human condi?tion must keep man the prisoner at hard
labor of a perpetual disparity between his unlimited wants and his
insufficient means... " and "there is (instead) a road to affluence,
departing from premises... that human wants are few, and technical means
unchanging but on the whole adequate."
In the mid-1970s, Diane
Gelburd, among others, found that the bushmen's lives in Dobe had
changed character since Richard Lee's field studies. The huts were built
of clay instead of grass and stood further apart. Some got doors as
they filled with personal belongings. Fences were built for the animals
that they have now acquired. The same was true of the bone remains,
which previously consisted only of remains from wild animals, but in
1976 to 80 consisted of bone remains from domesticated animals.
At
the same time, changes took place in internal social relations. The
distribution of assets decreased and the forms of e.g. marriage were
complicated due to new, previously unknown problems related to property
issues.
"What explains the shattering of this society"? asks John
Yellen from The National Science Foundation anthropology program. He
continues: "It hasn't been a direct force, a war, the ravages of
disease..." and answers: "1t is the internal conflicts, the tensions,
the inconsistencies, the impossibility of reconciling such different
views of the world."
The farming and cattle-herding Bantu peoples
invaded the traditional lands of the Khoisan peoples which also created
the cattle-herding Khoi. However, the Khoi and San have lived for
several thousands of years side by side without the gathering-hunting
San becoming cattle keepers.
So there's something more needed to
crack the spine of a typical San society. Is it about a critical point
for livelihood/population size? Is there a lower limit to the number of
individuals in a functioning hunter-gatherer culture? At what stage
exactly is the social immune system versus expanded demands for resource
broken down? Whether there is a critical point or whether it is a
question of a slowly increasing tension that gradually causes one
stronghold after another to give in, we see here the emergence of the
rift between cultural forms where the expanding demands for resources
has taken root with varying success (P. Klevius 1992).'
Surely, there's no way back. Creativity and innovations, i.e. technology, will determine our "civilized" future.
