Continental Drift and Concurrent Evolution of Human Species

A paper by Akhil Bakshi that if it’s not been read is certainly worth a person’s time to do so.

Monkeys, in various forms, evolved independently in different parts of the world. They did not walk from Africa to other continents. However, proponents of ‘single origin’ theory believe that they did exactly that – not walked but rafted!...It is difficult to believe that the South American monkey rafted across the high seas from Africa…Or take the case of the African and Asian elephants. They are also distant cousins. But did the African elephant also take the raft across the Sea of Tethys?


Marmoset - A South American Monkey

Continental Drift and Concurrent Evolution of Human Species

A critique of the African-origin theory

by
Akhil Bakshi

The theory in vogue about man’s origin is that he first evolved in Africa and from there spread out to colonise the rest of the world. This theory is known as the Out-of-Africa model, and also as the Recent single-origin hypothesis (RSOH), Replacement Hypothesis or Recent African Origin (RAO) model.

After leading the multi-disciplinary Gondwanaland Expedition across the interiors of 17 countries of South Asia, West Asia and Africa, through regions of great significance in the evolution of flora, fauna and humans, I doubt this theory and am more inclined to support the hypothesis that different races of humans, like many plant and animal species, evolved independently in various parts of the planet.

The fact that most of the oldest hominid fossils have been found around the Great Rift Valley lakes of Africa cannot make us decisively conclude that man originated in Africa. Perhaps older hominid fossils exist elsewhere in the world waiting to be discovered. Or, if they ever existed, these fossils have not been preserved by nature and are lost to science.

Fossils are more readily found in the African Rift valleys due to the layers of sediments and protective volcanic ash that help preserve them. Key records of human ancestry have been found along the Awash and Omo Rivers of Ethiopia, at Lake Turkana in Kenya, and Olduvai Gorge and Laetoli in Tanzania.  At Hadar, in Ethiopia, river erosion exposed the site where Lucy, one of the earliest known hominid, walked between three and four million years ago. Great Rift geology in this Afar region of Ethiopia is ideal for creating fossils. It is a low area that collects sediments necessary to bury and preserve bones. There is also volcanic ash that allows scientists to date the sediments. Faulting along the rift helps by bringing old bones back to the surface where they can be found. But just because the oldest hominid fossils have been found in regions, where ideal conditions exist for their preservation, it cannot be concluded that man originated in Africa.

Even if we are to assume that man did originate in Africa, what was the motivation for him to leave his homeland and migrate across inaccessible forests, deathly deserts and wide oceans and seas to lands and islands thousands of miles away? From the early stage of hominid evolution to, say, 50,000 years ago, when the hunter-gathers settled down to an agrarian life, the population was small, food abundant, and wars had not graduated to more than a bar room brawl, there was no reason or necessity for our ancestors to risk venturing from Africa to as far away as inaccessible Australia and all the places in-between.

If man migrated out of Africa and colonised the rest of the world, then other forms of life – plants, trees, ants, termites, butterflies, bees, crows, sparrows, hummingbirds, larks, lizards, bats, rats, squirrels, porcupines, horses, tigers, wolves – and everything else – can also be said to have made a nomadic exodus from the “home continent” of Africa and populated the planet without getting their feet wet.

Animals and humans do not wander unnecessarily. In fact, their instinct always leads them back to their “home”. Birds have a definite migratory path they follow year after year. An Arctic Tern flying to Antarctic from its breeding ground in Iceland will not stray or divert its flight path to Asia or South America. The central population of endangered Siberian Cranes winter in India – year after year – and go back home. Fish have their definite breeding grounds. The Olive Ridley Turtle comes back to the same beach to lay its eggs. Recently in India, a leopard, relocated 400km away from its home, found his way back to his forest. The Bushmen of Africa or the pygmies of Brazil or the Jarawas of Andamans have not picked up their bows and arrows and migrated to pleasanter climes – but have remained firmly rooted to their homeland – in spite of disease, droughts and floods.

It may be observed that traces of the Negroid race, outside of Africa, are in Australia- Papua New Guinea (Aborigines), Philippines (Aeta and Batak), Sri Lanka (Vedas), India (Sentinelese, Onge and Jarawas). Traces - because most of these original tribes inhabiting these lands have either been decimated or have mixed with other migrating races over the recent millennia. The remaining original tribes are marginalised and are on their way to extinction. But observe that these original inhabitants, of Negroid stock, are in countries and continents that were once a part of the super continent of Gondwanaland – that comprised of Africa, Australia, India, South America and Antarctica. Did they all walk from Africa or could they have evolved independently? If the Negroid race could have evolved in Africa from mammals – then could the same mammals not also evolve into the Negroid race on the landmasses of South America, Australia-Papua New Guinea and India - that were once joined to Africa and shared similar ecosystem and ancestral conditions? Reason and Darwinian logic says it should be possible.

Let us have a look at plant, marine and animal life that existed when Gondwanaland broke away from Laurasia - mostly during the Jurassic period, 210 million to 140 million years ago (MYA).

The ‘highest’ life forms living in the seas were fish and marine reptiles. The latter include ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs and marine crocodiles, of the families Teleosauridae and Metriorhynchidae. In the invertebrate world, several new groups had appeared, such as: planktonic foraminifera and calpionelids, rudists, a reef-forming variety of bivalves; belemnites; and brachiopods of the terebratulid and rinchonelid groups. Ammonites (shelled cephalopods) were particularly common and diverse.

On land, large archosaurian reptiles remained dominant. Great plant-eating dinosaurs (sauropods) roamed the land, feeding on prairies of ferns and palm-like cycads and bennettitales. They were preyed upon by large theropods (Ceratosaurs, Megalosaurs, and Allosaurs) - all of them belonging to the ‘lizard hipped’ or saurischian branch of the dinosaurs.

During the Late Jurassic, 160 million to 140 million years ago, the first birds evolved from small coelurosaur dinosaurs. In the air, pterosaurs were common.

During the Jurassic period, arid conditions had eased and the warm, humid climate allowed lush jungles to cover much of the landscape Conifers were the most diverse group of trees and constituted the greatest majority of large trees.

So when Gondwanaland began to break up in the mid- to late Jurassic (about 167 million years ago) there was sufficient plant, marine and reptile life on the super-continent. East Gondwana, comprising Antarctica-Madagascar-India-Australia, began to separate from Africa during the Middle Jurassic. South America began to drift slowly westward from Africa as the South Atlantic Ocean opened, beginning about 130 MYA (Early Cretaceous). East Gondwana itself began to be dismembered as India began to move northward, in the Early Cretaceous (about 120 MYA).  As the slow process of rifting and drifting continued,  and the continents moved away, the existing life forms would also have moved away with the landmasses (and not fled enmasse to the African part) and continued to evolve there, adapting to the changing climatic and physical conditions.

Flowering plants, spread during this period, aided by the appearance of bees; The first representatives of many modern trees, like figs and magnolias, appeared. Conifers continued to thrive. Insects began to diversify, and the oldest known ants, termites and some lepidopterans appeared – as did aphids, grasshoppers, and wasps. In the seas, rays, modern sharks and teleosts became common. Marine reptiles included ichthyosaurs in the early and middle of the Cretaceous, plesiosaurs throughout the entire period, and mosasaurs in the Late Cretaceous. Baculites, a straight-shelled form of ammonite, flourished in the seas. The Hesperornithiformes were flightless, marine diving birds that swam like grebes. Globotruncanid Foraminifera thrived.

On land, mammals were still a relatively minor component of the fauna that was dominated by archosaurian reptiles, especially dinosaurs, which were at their most diverse. The mammal-like reptiles, or Therapsids had first appeared about 285 million years ago near the beginning of the Permian, which is well before the dinosaurs. They evolved quickly and many different groups arose. The first mammal may never be known, but the Genus Morganucodon and in particular Morganucodon watsoni, a 2-3 cm long weasel-like animal whose fossils were first found in caves in Wales and around Bristol (UK), but later unearthed in China, India, North America, South Africa and Western Europe is a possible contender. It is believed to be between 200 MYA and 210 MYA. However Gondwanadon tapani reported from India on the basis of a single tooth in 1994 may be an earlier contender for the title, with a claimed date of 225 MYA. These early mammals were small, insectivorous, nocturnal, hairy and warm-blooded. Warm-bloodedness is believed to have first evolved among the cynodonts, a late but successful group of mammal-like reptiles from which the mammals evolved. The cynodonts were the only mammal-like reptiles to survive to the Jurassic (200 MYA-145 MYA); in fact they nearly made it into the Cretaceous (145 MYA – 65.5 MYA), and definitely coexisted with many of the major dinosaurs. During the Jurassic the mammals remained small and mainly nocturnal, living beneath the ‘metaphorical’ feet of the great dinosaurs. These early mammals were more like small monotremes and probably laid eggs. Marsupials and placental mammals (cats, dogs, you and me) did not evolve for another 70 million years.

The age of mammals got underway in earnest during the Cenozoic era, most recent of the the three classical geological eras that covers the period from 65.5 million years ago to the present. During this period, India was further broken into the Madagascar block and the Seychelles Islands. Elements of this breakup are nearly coincident with the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event that wiped out about 50% of all species on the planet, most notably the dinosaurs, 65 million years ago. All these species dying out left huge niche vacancies in the habitat. Following this disaster it was the mammals alone of the remaining groups of animals who diversified to take advantage of this new situation. The continent of Australia-New Guinea began to gradually separate and move north (55 million years ago), and, eventually, adjacent to South-east Asia; Antarctica moved into its current position over the South Pole; the Atlantic Ocean widened and, later in the era, South America became attached to North America. India collided with Asia between 55 and 45 MYA. By now, in the last 15 million years since the “Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event”,  the remaining 10 mammal families (five became extinct with the dinosaurs) expanded to become 78 families by the early Eocene, 55 MYA. The number of genera increased from about 40 to over 200 during the same time.

 


Asian Elephants

By the middle of the Eocene (45 MYA) all the major groups of mammals alive today had come into existence, though not necessarily as we know them now. By and by, from the life forms and mammals that inhabited the breakaway continents, emerged the primates. The order Primates consists of two major suborders: the Prosimii and the Anthropoidea.  The prosimians, meaning, “pre-monkey” were the first to evolve.  Often called the “lower primates”, they include the lemurs and lorises.

So, 45 MYA there were lemurs and other prosimians in Africa, India, Madagascar, Eurasia and North America. These evolved, slowly over the next 30 million years, into more advanced primates – like monkeys that populated all corners of the world, displacing most prosimians.  The various species of primates, adapting to their own environment, formed their own peculiar physical characteristics. One group of lower primates increased in size – producing the first apes of which the orang utan and gibbon survive in Asia, and chimpanzee and gorilla in Africa. A branch of these apes gave up their arboreal life for the ground. Their larger brain size led to an increase in learning and beginning of a group culture; the manipulative hand and the coordinated eyes made possible the manufacture and use of tools.  It was this branch that eventually became the ape-man – around 5 MYA. It had taken 15 millions years for apes to transform to the ape-man. It took the body of one branch of these ape-men another three million years to adapt to the life on plains. “Their feet became more suited to running, lost their ability to grasp, and acquired a slight arch. The hips changed, the joint moved to the centre of the pelvis to balance the upright torso. The skull changed. The jaws became smaller and the forehead more domed. The brain doubled in size” (Life on Earth, David Attenborough). The ape-man gradually became Homo erectus, the Upright Man.

From the above it is seen that when Gondwanaland broke, or for that matter when Pangea broke into Laurasia and Gondwanaland, there were certain forms of life on earth. If from this life, Homo erectus could have evolved in Africa, over millions of years, why then, from the same life forms, could he not also have evolved on other continents that had a similar ecosystem and ancestral conditions? One branch of an orang utan could have evolved into an Asiatic Ape-man who also eventually stood upright and developed Mongoloid features (Java Man, Peking Man) – today’s yellow race of Chinese, Japanese, etc. The African primates and gorillas branched off into the African Ape-man – that evolved into the present Negroid race that further evolved independently in the southern continents that were all once a part of the supercontinent of Gondwanaland. A branch of another primate in Europe, now perhaps extinct and so far untraceable, could have evolved into a European Ape-man – that eventually evolved from Cro-Magnon into the Caucasian race.

Monkeys, in various forms, evolved independently in different parts of the world. They did not walk from Africa to other continents.  However, proponents of ‘single origin’ theory believe that they did exactly that – not walked but rafted! Take, for instance, the origin of monkeys on the continent of South America - a matter of much debate. Given the isolation of South America for a large time during the Tertiary Period (65 million – 1.8 MYA), the question of how the monkeys reached the continent is difficult to answer for some scientists. The South American continent became separated from Africa during the Mesozoic era (251 MYA – 65MYA), so the problem is how did the primates reach the continent. The first fossil primates were found in the late Oligocene (34 – 23 MYA) and South America was not much closer to either Africa or North America as it is today. The early thinking by scientists was that the primates rafted from North America to South America, but based on “new evidence” they point to a probable African origin.

The “evidence” showing an African origin of the platyrrhine monkeys of South America is, first, the ocean currents of that time would have facilitated a crossing from Africa to South America and not from North America (Tarling, 1982; cited in Fleagle, 1988). During the middle Oligocene there was a large drop in sea level that may have allowed rafting to be more permissible (Fleagle, 1988). The first fossil platyrrhine, Branisella boliviana was found during the late Oligocene, so it is possible that platyrrhines first came to South America during the middle Oligocene (Fleagle, 1988). Also they point to a morphological characteristic that links the platyrrhines with the Oligocene parapithecids of Africa. Both the parapithecids and extinct and extant platyrrhines show extensive postorbital closure, which is not found in primates from North America (Fleagle and Kay, 1997). The caviamorph rodents that are found in South America also did not appear until the Oligocene and have their closest relatives as the African porcupines showing that there may have been other animals rafting from Africa to South America (Hoffstetter and Lavocat, 1970; cited in Fleagle, 1988). Thus most of the evidence for the origin of platyrrhines points to the continent of Africa (Fleagle, 1988).

It is difficult to believe that the South American monkey rafted across the high seas from Africa. It is more likely, and perfectly plausible, that the South American monkey, rodent and porcupine, said to be relatives of the African species, had their common evolutionary origin in Gondwanaland.  They evolved independently in South America from the same base material that was available in Gondwanaland – when Africa and South America were joined as one landmass.

Or take the case of the African and Asian elephants. They are also distant cousins. But did the African elephant also take the raft across the Sea of Tethys? No raft of that period would have the capacity to do so – and Noah wasn’t born yet. Both animals evolved from the same ancestor, a small, trunkless, pig-like animal that lived in Africa. As India moved away from Africa, this pig-like animal evolved into the Asian elephant on the India landmass and as the African elephant on the African landmass, each having its own peculiar characteristics.

Similarly, the primates evolved independently on the separated (but once joined) continents – and, by and by, these evolved into the biologically-similar hominid race with different physical characteristics – the races in the now separated Gondwanaland region assuming similar Negroid physical uniqueness and the hominids of Laurasia assuming Caucasian and Mongoloid characteristics.

Today, the Negroid races survive mostly in Africa. In the rest of the former Gondwanaland regions, the Negroid race has become marginalised, inter-mixed or extinct – Aborigines in Australia-Papua New Guinea, Veddas in Sri Lanka and the Great Andamanese tribals in India.

Take the case of India. I hypothesise that the hominid race that originally evolved in India had Negroid features – their remnants being the Sentinelise, Jarawasas and the Onge on Andaman Islands. At one time, when their population was significant, they had occupied large tracts of the country. As groups of technologically superior Dravidian people, themselves of mixed ancestry, moved into the Indian heartland from the north, 6,000-8,000 years ago, some of the original inhabitants were liquidated – by war and disease. Then, overtime, the original Negroid race mixed with the Dravidian race – the remnants of which probably are the present-day tribals of India, the adivasis, which include Gonds and Bhils of Central India, Bonda of Orissa, Birhor of Bihar, Cholanikan of Kerala, Chenchu of Ap, etc. The Dravidian migrants, who flourished in India for thousands of years and built great civilisations (that reached their peak in Mohanjodaro and Harappa 4,000– 4,600 years ago - around the same time when the Egyptian civilisation was at its zenith), were later themselves pushed southwards by the invading Aryans. Migration and racial mixing between Aryans and Dravidians followed – and is still continuing.  Meanwhile, the handful of the remaining original Negroid population, confined to a few small islands in the Andaman Sea, faces extinction.

Evolution is a slow process. It took hundreds of millions of years for apes to evolve. It took another fifteen million years for the ape to become ape-man. Two million years passed before the ape-man could stand upright and become Homo erectus. Homo sapiens emerged 200,000 years ago. According to the ‘Out of Africa’ theory, man moved out of Africa 60,000 years ago. When he moved out, he must have had Negroid features. Are we to believe that in only 40,000 – 50,000 years the Negroid race evolved into Caucasian and Mongoloid races with vastly different physical characteristics?

The proponents of the ‘Out of Africa’ theory are increasingly seeking support of genetics. According to their hypothesis, all 7 billion people alive today have inherited the same Mitochondrial DNA from one woman who lived in Africa about 200,000 years ago; and all men today have inherited their Y-chromosomes from a man who lived 60,000 years ago, probably in Africa. Genetics, as a science, is still in its infancy and the theories and conclusions of geneticists and molecular biologists are, as much as that of other scientists, still vulnerable to revisions, rifts and reversals. For instance, in the last 50 years molecular biologists have been obsessed with the DNA and dismissed the neglected RNA as a a humble carrier of messages and fetcher of building materials. Now, suddenly, they have discovered RNA’s great significance in the evolution of life.There are still several genes whose functions are unknown. Scientists’ ideas about humanity’s past are particularly prone to change, sometimes coming full circle. Forty years ago, for example, palaeontologists thought that hominids, the group of primates that includes modern humans, had been distinct from other apes for some 25m years. The figure has now been revised to 5 million. The certainties about our past are at best transient.

My hypothesis is similar to what is believed by the “multiregionalists” who think “either that pre-sapiens hominids were all a vast, interbreeding species that gradually evolved into sapiens everywhere, or, against all Darwinian logic, that Homo sapiens arose independently in several places by some unknown process of parallel evolution.” (Economist, December 20, 2005). My hypothesis, by linking the continental drift theory and the theory of evolution, attempts to explain this “unknown” process – and does not defy Darwinian logic.

Continental Drift and Concurrent Evolution of Human Species

Posted by Alex on Wednesday, January 6, 2010 at 01:19 PM in
Comments (15) | Tell a friend

Comments:

1

Posted by Alex on January 06, 2010, 02:05 PM | #

Some might wonder why the seeming almost obsession with Africans, particularly sub-Saharan Africans, and their being ‘mixed’ with other peoples, by those advocating the ideology of cheap labor and institutionalized division, aka Multi-Culturalism.    In part this can be explained by the fact that when those today who advocate the Multi-cult (prior to their discovery of the wonders of that modern variant of slavery known euphamistically as ‘cheap labor’) were involved in chattel slavery and its trade that they discovered that the Sub-Saharan Africans had what are termed ‘dominant genes’ and that other peoples, such as European, in many instances did not, and had ‘recessive genes’ instead.    In what is certainly offensive to most healthy thinking people of whatever background, the direct political and spiritual forebears of today’s Multi-Culturalist, the slavers and slave traders of not all that many generations back, a relative few though powerful personages, did ‘mix’, ie breed, Europeans and Africans for their sordid purposes, and thus do indeed have experience in that sort of thing which they readily recall.

Multi-Culturalism is a rather crude and barbaric ideology.  Advocates of the ideology are crude and barbaric.

2

Posted by Desmond Jones on January 06, 2010, 05:46 PM | #

This appears to be a re-iteration of Edward Forbes view that Darwin addresses in Chapter 12 of Origin.

We now come to the last of the three classes of facts, which I have selected as presenting the greatest amount of difficulty, on the view that all the individuals both of the same and of allied species have descended from a single parent; and therefore have all proceeded from a common birthplace, notwithstanding that in the course of time they have come to inhabit distant points of the globe. I have already stated that I cannot honestly admit Forbes’s view on continental extensions, which, if legitimately followed out, would lead to the belief that within the recent period all existing islands have been nearly or quite joined to some continent. This view would remove many difficulties, but it would not, I think, explain all the facts in regard to insular productions. In the following remarks I shall not confine myself to the mere question of dispersal; but shall consider some other facts, which bear on the truth of the two theories of independent creation and of descent with modification. [...]

With respect to the absence of whole orders on oceanic islands, Bory St. Vincent long ago remarked that Batrachians (frogs, toads, newts) have never been found on any of the many islands with which the great oceans are studded. I have taken pains to verify this assertion, and I have found it strictly true. I have, however, been assured that a frog exists on the mountains of the great island of New Zealand; but I suspect that this exception (if the information be correct) may be explained through glacial agency. This general absence of frogs, toads, and newts on so many oceanic islands cannot be accounted for by their physical conditions; indeed it seems that islands are peculiarly well fitted for these animals; for frogs have been introduced into Madeira, the Azores, and Mauritius, and have multiplied so as to become a nuisance. But as these animals and their spawn are known to be immediately killed by sea-water, on my view we can see that there would be great difficulty in their transportal across the sea, and therefore why they do not exist on any oceanic island. But why, on the theory of creation, they should not have been created there, it would be very difficult to explain.

If a continental drift carried species to remote areas, why such a paucity of species if their point of origin was so well endowed.

3

Posted by Drifter on January 07, 2010, 07:08 PM | #

Some might wonder why the seeming almost obsession with Africans, particularly sub-Saharan Africans, and their being ‘mixed’ with other peoples, by those advocating the ideology of cheap labor and institutionalized division, aka Multi-Culturalism.

You won’t hear a liberal state this, but because the sub-Saharan is ostensibly the most pitiable, he or she provides us with the greatest opportunity to afford him or her our liberal democratic secular salvation using our education and welfare systems. “If we can save the black African, we have proven our methods correct.”

Think about what would motivate such people and see the world from their eyes. Ignore their words.

4

Posted by Drifter on January 07, 2010, 07:17 PM | #

Remember also, you are the dangerous, exploitive supremacist if you would prefer to maintain an ocean’s breadth between yourself and kin and the aforementioned sub-Saharans. The liberal establishment isn’t white supremacist for seeking constant indoctrination of the savages into their superior End-of-History liberal democratic system. Or, I think they instead say in the present century, the various diverse people of the world rather than savages.

5

Posted by h.kalervo on January 07, 2010, 11:32 PM | #

Off-topic, but take a look at this:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/30/europes-looming-demise/

Come Jan. 1, 2010, a disastrous and suicidal pact called the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (Europe/Mediterranean) goes into effect with little fanfare or examination. It boggles the mind that such a consequential and seismic cultural shift could be mandated and put into play without so much as a murmur from the mainstream media. ...

The goal of the Euro-Mediterranean cooperation is to create a new Greater European Union encompassing both Europe and North Africa, with the Mediterranean Sea becoming a domestic Eurabian sea.

Brussels economists claim Britain and other EU states will ‘need’ 56 million immigrant workers between them by 2050 to make up for the ‘demographic decline’ due to falling birthrates and rising death rates across Europe.

According to [etc.] “fifty million North Africans from Muslim countries are to be imported into the EU.”

Isn’t the Washington Times a joo paper? Guess they don’t like Muslims.

6

Posted by h.kalervo on January 07, 2010, 11:40 PM | #

Checked; wasn’t a joo paper. Guess they like Muslims in Europe since they’re not reporting this.

7

Posted by Claude on January 09, 2010, 02:55 PM | #

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/30/europes-looming-demise/

Come Jan. 1, 2010, a disastrous and suicidal pact called the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (Europe/Mediterranean) goes into effect with little fanfare or examination. It boggles the mind that such a consequential and seismic cultural shift could be mandated and put into play without so much as a murmur from the mainstream media. ...


Let the war begin…OAS all the way.

8

Posted by Dr. Keisha Kwanzaa (PhD, post doc, post post doc, on January 11, 2010, 02:22 AM | #

Did any of you bitches read this work by Richard Fuerle. It is the best shit there is on human evolution.
http://erectuswalksamongst.us/

It proves the out of Africa nonsense wrong. Claims, we black African niggers and those niggers in the South pacific including Australian abos are remnants of homo erectus populations still alive. I suggest ya’ll go thru it. Love and Respect to all.

9

Posted by Keisha Kwanzaa on January 11, 2010, 02:26 AM | #

This diagram shud give you a general idea.

http://erectuswalksamongst.us/SecIV.html

Love and Respect to yaal,
Dr. Keisha Kwanzaa (PhD, post Doc, post post Doc, big chief)

10

Posted by Eduard Schwarz on June 13, 2010, 07:47 PM | #

Should we bring in spontaneous mutation that happened during different historic times while the territories were drifting?

11

Posted by GNL on May 12, 2012, 05:01 PM | #

very little on actual concurrent development in this paper.

two out of man examples of evidence of separate development or early appearances of advanced men of different races at un expected millenea both at the natural museum at nyc
the twenty five thousand old advanced village uncovered i n or near swizzerland and the advance modern man found in the swizz alps that dates way back before primitive man from afro/asia
other example is china that of a cuacasian princess dressed in slavic like royal clothing and burried with silver and golden horse gear the chinese government tried to hide it but you cannot hide with the internet

12

Posted by Tocharian on May 12, 2012, 05:33 PM | #

other example is china that of a cuacasian princess dressed in slavic like royal clothing and burried with silver and golden horse gear the chinese government tried to hide it but you cannot hide with the internet

That would be the TOCHARIANS, who were closely related to Celts and Italics. They initially belonged to the CELTO-ITALO-TOCHARIAN division of the Indo-European family. These Tocharians developed an advanced civilization in present-day but the region was later taken over, like most of central Asia, by Turkic-speaking peoples. The present-day Turkic Uighurs carry Tocharian genes.

13

Posted by Mike Valentine on March 27, 2013, 01:36 PM | #

Always believe most of this theory, as the out of Africa is simply illogical….1) apes & other mammals evolved independenly, why not humans 2) There wasn’t enough time for the HomoSapiens from Africa to make extinct or interbreed with others and eveolve into modern humans 3) If Out Of Africa is correct, then the humans there, having the advantage of time & learned behavior & technology, should be far superior in culture & technology, prto-type Europeans and Semites & Hamites have been far superior in all those aspects thousands of years ago and are much more so today…with Africans even regressing without European colonial support 4) Orientals or Asians, who have been in latitudes close to Africans for thousands of years have completely different features than Africans & never darken like them 5) You cannot rely on language & ethnicity alone…the Frence were pure ethnic Germantic peoples, who now speak a Romantic language…you could not tell by features any difference in Basques & Spainish, but the Basque language is not related to any Indo-European language 6) More & more scientist are now believing Neanderthls were not made extinct, and they contributed greatly to modern Europeans….......THE PROBLEM IS THAT QUILT RIDDEN, HOLIER THAN NOW, ZEALOT, MISGUIDED, NAIVE, IGNORE THE FACTS, POLITICALLY CORRECT ACADEMICS CRUSIFY ANYONE THAT DARES PUT FORTH SUCH A ‘RACIST THEORY’...OR IN THEIR MINDS…

14

Posted by Joe on March 27, 2013, 03:29 PM | #

A good case can be made asserting Neanderthals still exist, and the Neantherthals exist in what Hymie in Afula would call “Israel” ;  What others—such as myself—always call Hymie’s Zionist “holy land” ,  Izzysmell ;

” The Smell of a Skunk” :

http://leftwing-christian.net/2013/03/26/the-smell-of-skunk-a-zionist-lobby-with-orwellian-powers.aspx?ref=rss

One usually calls Hymies in Izzysmell habiru- sagiz snakes, but exceptions are allowed at certain times like these when one can truly call the Hymies , “Skunks” , as Hymie’s Izzysmell stinks like a skunk, while keeping in mind, of course—as it’s difficult to avoid the odor—Hymie’s dank serpent -stink still permeates, as well as the awful skunk-odor that just reeks and permeates Izzysmell at the same time : I guess it’s just the way Neanderthals—we call Neanderthals “Zionists” and/or Hymies these days—reek in general, half snake- odor, half skunk-smell : It’s so atavistic it can only be done by Neanderhals. I guess Neanderthals - qua atavists they truly are—naturally have a puissant taint to them; Looks to be the case, considering the information in the article at :

“LeftWing Christian .net”

 

15

Posted by Joe on March 27, 2013, 04:33 PM | #

Scientific studies show that the evolutionary process, at least amongst parasites, is indeed reversible : Parasites can go atavistic at any time they please,  as we if we needed more proof :

http://www.counselheal.com/artices/4302/20130311/study-house-mites-suggests-evolution-reversible.htm

 

Post a Comment:

Name: (required)

Email: (required but not displayed)

URL: (optional)

Smileys

You must prefix http://anonym.to/? to gnxp.com links...
e.g., http://anonym.to/?http://www.gnxp.com/...

Copy your comment to the clipboard or paste it somewhere before submitting
it just in case the software loses it because the session time has been exceeded.

Remember my personal information

Next entry: Projection?

Previous entry: It’s politics.  And it’s KMD.

image of the day

Existential Issues

White Genocide Project

Of note

Majority Radio

Recent Comments

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Objectivism, Subjectivism, Relativism and Vico's place in the turn' on 12/26/14, 06:48 PM. (go) (view)

GoldenDawn commented in entry '30 euros a day, accommodation, food, and cigarette voucher' on 12/26/14, 03:17 PM. (go) (view)

EuropeanChristmases commented in entry 'Season's Greetings from Majority Rights' on 12/26/14, 02:35 PM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry '"The Necessary War" - a film by Max Hastings' on 12/26/14, 10:02 AM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Objectivism, Subjectivism, Relativism and Vico's place in the turn' on 12/26/14, 09:47 AM. (go) (view)

Jeff Traube commented in entry '"The Necessary War" - a film by Max Hastings' on 12/26/14, 09:45 AM. (go) (view)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Objectivism, Subjectivism, Relativism and Vico's place in the turn' on 12/26/14, 08:47 AM. (go) (view)

uKn_Leo commented in entry 'MajorityRadio: Paul Weston of LibertyGB talks to GW and DanielS' on 12/24/14, 02:04 PM. (go) (view)

uKn_Leo commented in entry 'MajorityRadio: Paul Weston of LibertyGB talks to GW and DanielS' on 12/24/14, 01:41 PM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry '"The Necessary War" - a film by Max Hastings' on 12/24/14, 11:52 AM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Season's Greetings from Majority Rights' on 12/24/14, 11:19 AM. (go) (view)

Benefit commented in entry 'Season's Greetings from Majority Rights' on 12/24/14, 11:17 AM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry '"The Necessary War" - a film by Max Hastings' on 12/24/14, 10:57 AM. (go) (view)

For Teh Lulz commented in entry 'Men are the losers of the sexual revolution' on 12/24/14, 10:17 AM. (go) (view)

Haha! commented in entry '"The Necessary War" - a film by Max Hastings' on 12/24/14, 09:41 AM. (go) (view)

Morgoth commented in entry 'MajorityRadio: Paul Weston of LibertyGB talks to GW and DanielS' on 12/24/14, 04:02 AM. (go) (view)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'MajorityRadio: Paul Weston of LibertyGB talks to GW and DanielS' on 12/24/14, 01:19 AM. (go) (view)

uKn_Leo commented in entry 'MajorityRadio: Paul Weston of LibertyGB talks to GW and DanielS' on 12/23/14, 10:44 AM. (go) (view)

uKn_Leo commented in entry 'MajorityRadio: Paul Weston of LibertyGB talks to GW and DanielS' on 12/23/14, 10:26 AM. (go) (view)

Morgoth commented in entry 'MajorityRadio: Paul Weston of LibertyGB talks to GW and DanielS' on 12/23/14, 07:43 AM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'MajorityRadio: Paul Weston of LibertyGB talks to GW and DanielS' on 12/23/14, 04:36 AM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'MajorityRadio: Paul Weston of LibertyGB talks to GW and DanielS' on 12/22/14, 11:15 PM. (go) (view)

uKn_Leo commented in entry 'MajorityRadio: Paul Weston of LibertyGB talks to GW and DanielS' on 12/22/14, 07:48 PM. (go) (view)

uKn_Leo commented in entry 'Season's Greetings from Majority Rights' on 12/22/14, 01:57 PM. (go) (view)

Abernethy commented in entry '30 euros a day, accommodation, food, and cigarette voucher' on 12/22/14, 01:35 PM. (go) (view)

Dude commented in entry '30 euros a day, accommodation, food, and cigarette voucher' on 12/22/14, 01:03 PM. (go) (view)

Mr.Magoo commented in entry 'Season's Greetings from Majority Rights' on 12/22/14, 08:21 AM. (go) (view)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Go East – Part 2' on 12/22/14, 05:48 AM. (go) (view)

jrackell commented in entry '30 euros a day, accommodation, food, and cigarette voucher' on 12/21/14, 04:48 PM. (go) (view)

Camorra commented in entry '30 euros a day, accommodation, food, and cigarette voucher' on 12/21/14, 04:18 AM. (go) (view)

Sean commented in entry '30 euros a day, accommodation, food, and cigarette voucher' on 12/21/14, 02:24 AM. (go) (view)

Sean commented in entry '30 euros a day, accommodation, food, and cigarette voucher' on 12/21/14, 02:21 AM. (go) (view)

jrackell commented in entry '30 euros a day, accommodation, food, and cigarette voucher' on 12/20/14, 09:30 PM. (go) (view)

JoaquinFloresAtRI commented in entry '30 euros a day, accommodation, food, and cigarette voucher' on 12/20/14, 10:14 AM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry '"The Necessary War" - a film by Max Hastings' on 12/19/14, 08:55 PM. (go) (view)

General News

Science News

All Categories

The Writers

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Anti-White Media

Audio/Video

Controlled Opposition

Crime

Economics

Education

General

Historical Re-Evaluation

Immigration

Islam

Jews

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Whites in Africa

affection-tone