According to Peter Klevius, the start of the Homo lineage was initiated by a climate cooling caused by the closing of the Panama isthmus and due lover sea level in the SE Asian archipelago (see below).
*
"Afropologist" here refers to people who either are themselves involved
or have ignorantly accepted the concerted ranting from those who are.
Väinö
Myllyrinne from Finland was the world's tallest man who was also
healthy throughout his entire life span until he prematurely died from
consequences of a hip surgery after an accident at age 54. He peaked at
251.4 cm. There have been taller men but they have all been sick and/or
died early, and Sultan Kösen is younger and uses canes, witch Väinö
Myllyrinne never needed (see video). According to Peter Klevius, the
mixing of North Eurasian women with the s.c. kurgan people, genetically
produced many healthy giants in the borderline between proto-Uralic and
PIE speakers see (below).
These unscientific stupidities would
not flourish were it not for PC media's (Google etc.) censoring and
brainwashing, which suppresses true science*.
* There are roughly four categories of scientific discourse:
1.
True science, which covers all fields and isn't affected by PC or
financial and career aspects. Peter Klevius is a complete virgin
scientist in this respect because although his first ever (1981)
scientific article was well paid for and highly supported by
Wittgenstein's successor at Cambridge, G. H. von Wright, since then he
hasn't monetized on science. Moreover, very few, incl. the editorial
boards, understood the paper which would possibly never had been
published was it not for the fact that the chief editor being a close
friend to von Wright.
2. "Normal" science which on the face of it
seems serious but is hampered by peer review stiffness and paper
inflation (compare what Peter Klevius wrote in Demand for Resources 1992
in the chapter Science and References).
3. Speculative science. However, Peter Klevius is a coward and wouldn't dare to speculate in public.
4.
PC "science" - like "out-of-Africa" mythology based on nothing except
wishful guesswork at best and mind corruption at worst..
Quite
telling also that Peter Klevius isn't even mentioned, which makes it
almost impossible for ordinary people and "afropologists" to see
anything else than these kind of stupid and completely unfounded
remarks. There simply doesn't exist a single argument for "out of
Africa" that Peter Klevius can't easily debunk in a way that even less
intelligent people may see the light.
However, the bottom line is
that Africa is impossible from every aspect (see below) and therefore
doesn't even qualify as a candidate.
From https://www.reddit.com/r/evolution/comments/om4wdv/does_homo_floresiensis_prove_that_human_origin_is/
"Afropologist":
All the early fossils of human ancestors come from Africa. So far
everything from 2-6 million years ago has been discovered on the African
continent.
Peter Klevius: So extremely wrong! They are all ambiguous and fit in a shoe box - together with a decent pair of shoes.
"Afropologist": H. floresiencis is probably about 1 million years old.
Peter
Klevius: So 1 Ma it suddenly came out of a continent that lacks any
trace of it, and then made it over tha Wallace line to Flores where it
flourished on several places for nearly 1 My. Or transformed 1 My back
to a much earlier evolutionary state in a process that is unheard of
before. All of this hocus pocus when there's a logical explanation that
ticks every box - it evolved there in a much better evolutionary
laboratory than continental Afrasia. Just as we know e.g. antelopes did
before they went to Africa.
"Afropologist": All
australopithecines and ardipithecines are in Africa, humans nest
genetically within the African Great Apes, African populations are
genetically the oldest and most diverse with all non-Africans nesting as
a subset inside of that diversity. Out Of Africa is alive and well lol.
Peter
Klevius: All floresienses and lutzonensis are in SE Asia. The oldest
bipedal ape fossils (12 Ma) have been found in Europe but didn't evolve
there. And the much younger P6-7 My) but Africa's oldest bipedal ape was
found in a green corridor stretching from the Mediterranean into
Sahara, and with no connection to sub-Saharan or East Africa. And
nesting genetically to some extent species is worse than guesswork
because we have every reason to believe that the closest ape ancestor is
equally extinct as are Neanderthals and Denisovans. And genetical deep
branching several hundreds of thousands ya tells nothing about where
they then lived - also considering cold adapted traces. This kind of
reasoning we used to call charlatanism when it pretends to be
"scientific". "Out of Africa" is more than terminally ill - it's equally
dead as Monty Pyton's parrot! And unlike the parrot, it was born
dead.
"Afropologist": H. floresiensis
likely represents an archaic lineage that radiated out of Africa before
our own and didn't leave any descendants. Human evolution isn't a linear
march of progress towards modern humans. It's a very bushy story with
plenty of dead ends.
Peter Klevius: Homo floresiensis and Homo
lutzonensis clearly left descendants in China (Red Deer Cave people in
Maludong and and Longlin cave in Yunnan) which had archaic human like
skulls completely different from the apelike naledi. The only dead end
is "out of Africa"!
"Afropologist": Also, we don't really know
how they got to Flores. It's important to remember sea levels were a lot
lower back then, so you could travel a lot further on land. They
could've walked most of the way, and then sailed or swam if they needed
to.
Peter Klevius: No, 1 Ma the climate was warmer so the sea
level was higher. Moreover, it's ridiculous to talk about walking and
then sailing from Africa instead of the sel-fevident scenario that fits
what we do know, namely that Homo floresiensis was out of reach for
Africa but its cousin Homo lutzonensis cousins could easily have made it
to Africa as Homo habilis. A long oscillating cooling trend started
around 3 Ma due to the final closing of the Caribbean ocean passage.
This is exactly when we expect the first Homos to have appeared.
"Afropologist":
The emerging views is that Africa is the most important location for
human evolution, but that important migrations also occurred into
Africa.
Peter Klevius: All migration went originally into Africa.
And as Africa is a peninsula to Eurasia, nothing then hindered back and
forth migration contrary to the afropologist delusion that even big
brained modern Homos had difficulties to get out of Africa.
"Afropologist": Early Erectus (or possibly H. Habilis) out of Africa, and into Asia some time after 2.3 million years ago
Peter Klevius: H. Habilis) out of SE Asia and into Africa some time around 3 Ma!
"Afropologist": European branch eventually becomes Neanderthals, but there is also movement back into Africa.
Peter Klevius: Neanderthals and parts of Denisovans were non-tropical Homo variants which became engulfed in the human genome.
"Afropologist": African population then develops into H. sapiens, and then migrate into Asia and then later Europe.
Peter
Klevius: Asian population then develops into H. sapiens, and then
migrate ovwe the world while hybridizing with more archaic versions
hence leaving the racial pattern we see today.
Some scientists belive that human origin is asia and h.floresi is the evidence?
"Afropologist": What scientist believes that?
Peter
Klevius is the name! You need to read him carefully to get out of your
delusion! Start below. Google hasn't made it easy to find me. Actually,
if I write the name of a person I used to know one gets better result on
me than when just googling my name. This is especially true when it
comes to images which you can find loads of if you scoll past Google's
pessimistic outlook all the way down!
"Afropologist": Wondering
that too. Literally had never heard anyone try to claim that before
since it doesn't match ANY of the evidence.
Peter Klevius:
Indeed, you hadn't heard about it! And unlike the "out of Africa" joke
every evidence is for SE Asia. WHAT "evidence" are you talking about?!
"Afropologist":
Well, Eugene Dubois (discoverer of Java Man) believed it a century ago
and slowly drove himself mad trying to find evidence, but I don't think I
know of any recent paleoanthropologists who have said anything like
this.
Peter Klevius: Luckily, we've found evidence so we avoid going mad.
"Afropologist": And H. floresiensis isn't remotely worth considering as a candidate for an ancestor to anything.
Peter Klevius: I rest my case about my accusation about unscientific PC swarming completely darkeining science and logic.
How did flores men get to the Flores island?
Peter Klevius: They evolved on the Sahul side of the Wallace line, but in a similar environment as the Sundaland side.
Are they african early human who traveld to flores?
"Afropologist": No, from what I recall, they're more closely related to Homo erectus than they are to us.
Peter
Klevius: Homo erectus has absolutely nothing to do with Homo
floresiensis. It's already evident in the name. Homo erectus was a
perfect bipedal, whereas Homo floresiensis, although a bipedal, was
nowhere near.
Why scientists don't think that we've evolved in asia and then traveled to rest of the world?
"Afropologist":
The simplest reason is that the oldest human fossils occur in East
Africa. Our species, based on fossil and genetic evidence, branch from
an African L haplotype, which then ventured in waves into the rest of
Africa and the world at large, reproducing with the locals along the
way. Albeit, not constantly, but enough to leave their genetic
signatures in whole subpopulations of our species.
If, on the
other hand, H. habilis is excluded from Homo, then the meager evidence
we have is consistent with H. erectus, and thus Homo, evolving from a H.
habilis-grade taxon either within, or outside of, Africa. In the most
parsimonious version of the “outside of Africa” scenario for the origin
of Homo, H. erectus would have evolved from a H. habilis-grade hominin
either in Asia or in Southeast Asia, and then H. erectus would have
migrated to Africa some time before 1.87 Ma. This scenario is consistent
with the aspects of the morphology of the Dmanisi and the Liang Bua
hominins that are more primitive than the condition seen in H. erectus
sensu stricto. This primitive morphology is one of stumbling blocks for a
“within Africa” scenario for the origin of H. erectus taxon, for it
would mean the migration out of Africa of two hominins, first a H.
habilis grade taxon then H. erectus sensu stricto. Another stumbling
block for an ancestor descendant relationship between H. habilis and H.
erectus sensu stricto within Africa is that both the ancestor and the
descendant overlap in time in East Africa for several hundred thousand
years.
Wood, Bernard. 2011. “Did Early Homo Migrate ‘out of’ or
‘in to’ Africa?” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108
(26): 10375–76. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1107724108.
Peter
Klevius: A child can understand that nn old haplotype found in modern
humans in Africa is no evidence at all. There are no genetic evidence
connecting DNA branching in the distant past to Africa. Antelopes also
have old DNA that we do know originated outside Africa. And what is "the
oldest human fossils in Africa"?! The oldest bipedal apes are connected
to Europe - not East Africa. And Homo erectus appeared in Africa out of
the blue without any predecessor in Africa. And the Homo floresiensis
like Homo habilis overlaps Homo erectus in Africa and has such a poor
fossil record than no one can be sure about its limb function.
"Afropologist":
The best easy to understand evidence against an "into Africa"
hypothesis is that our closest relatives (chimps and gorillas) live in
Africa (also lots and lots of very old fossils of early humans and
similar).
Peter Klevius: Antelopes live in Africa but certainly
didn't originate there! And chimps and gorillas are knuckle-walkers
unlike many ape species in SE Asia which are much more like us in this
resoect. Moreover, chimps and gorillas like baboons, antelopes etc.
cannot have evolved on a continent like Africa. That's why all chimps,
gorillas and baboons which have been geographically isolated from each
other can hybridize when individuals slip through the net - although
they are called different species. Real evolution didn't occure in
Africa among these. And a bipedal ape/Homo would have been even more
"slippery".
"Afropologist": Parsimony supports lots of species of
early humans evolving in Africa over a long period of time and
successive migrations out (resulting is fossils of early humans
elsewhere) with the most recent one being Homo sapiens (modern humans).
The idea in that paper appears to be that an Asian early human went back
to Africa, replaced the other species in Africa, and then came back out
as Homo sapiens.
Peter Klevius: ?!
"Afropologist": I
think Homo floresiensis is more like extremely distant cousins like Homo
habilis may have led to Homo erectus in Africa but also this other
lineage of Homo habilis descendants migrated across Asia that was not
also a subset of Homo erectus.
Peter Klevius: Homo floresiensis
is exactly what one would expect to have evolved in the tropical and
volatile East Asian archipelago. That we only have traces of it for one
million years should not confuse the fact that its morphology is way
older yet its head is definitely on the Homo lineage. Moreover, Homo
lutzonensis on the opposite side of the Wallace line disproves any
counter argument. Actually, there isn't a single valid argument for
"out-of-Africa" but an ocean (sorry about the pun) of arguments against
it.
"Afropologist": Homo naledi existed at about the same time
as our own species and it appears to be even less related to us than
Neanderthals and Denisovans. I don’t think they’ve worked out exactly
how they fit into our family tree but they appear to be something else
besides a Homo heidelbergensis or Homo antecessor descendant that lived
about 335,000 years ago as our own lineage was called Homo sapiens (or
sometimes Homo rhodesiensis) starting roughly 400,000 years ago.
Peter Klevius: Africa is like a zoo - everything is imported.
"Afropologist":
So around 335,000 years ago there was Homo naledi, a lineage that was
on its way to becoming Homo floresiensis, Homo neanderthalensis,
Denisovans, Homo sapiens, an offshoot lineage of Homo heidelbergensis,
and an even more distantly related to us lineage of Homo erectus. And
that’s just some of the species we know about. Homo naledi and Homo
sapiens lived at the same time. They’re not our ancestors.
Peter
Klevius: Homo naledi is of zero interest but is presented as something
special while Homo floresiensis is called a sick Hobbit or just a weirdo
in the evolutionary tree - while the stunning Deer Cave People in China
get no prime time at all because of the silly "out-of-Africa" PC
ranting. What all African fossils have in common is overlapping in time
which is exactly what you'd expect in an evolutionary dump - not in an
evolutionary cradle.
"Afropologist": I think the biggest problem
with any into Africa hypothesis is, that our closest living relatives
are all there, and we haven't yet found any stem hominids outside of
Africa. Floresiensis and Nadeli and the Dragon Man(whatever this ones
called) are all not really stem hominids. If we ever find a stem
hominids ranging outside Africa we'd have a good argument for migration
into Africa and not just out.
Peter Klevius: Lack of evidense is
no evidence! And as the African continent (which is a peninsula to the
Eurasian continent) is impossible for evolutionary isolation, we do know
that the important fossils are in SE Asia which is not only tropical
but also a volatile archipelago.
Peter Klevius wrote:
How the pliocene-pleistocene Panama isthmus debunks wild rafting "theories" and confirms Peter Klevius' calm out of SE Asia human evolution analysis!
Peter Klevius tutorial for Greta Thunberg and others ignorant about climate changes and human evolution
*
Without DNA and our latest findings, but being a geologist, Eugene
Dubois was perfectly right when he already 1891 searched in the right
place and discovered "the missing link" of his time, i.e. what he named
Pithecanthropus erectus, now called Homo erectus, in SE Asia. Peter
Klevius thinks 'pithecus' is still more appropriate considering that
Homo habilis and Homo floresiensis, like Dmanisipithecus, all lack what
is considered the classic "Homo" erectus trait, i.e. full full modern
human like bipedalism. We were wrong about the brain, and now it's
apparent we were also wrong about bipedalism. Dubois founded
paleo-anthropology by not only finding the fossils, but he also analyzed
them in a wholly new way by pulling human fossils out of the context of
racial identification and shoved it into an evolutionary context. Peter Klevius aid to release afropologists from their "out-of-Africa" delusion:
1.
An easily mowing bipedal ape with a big brain who eats almost
everything can not possibly evolve on a continent like Africa - only
possibly hybridize.
2. Africa lacks unambiguous transitional fossil between ape and Homo.
3. DNA doesn't prove that ancestors 100,000 years ago lived in Africa.
4. SE Asia has everything Africa lacks (incl. Homo floresiensis and Denisovan DNA).
And
to Greta Thunberg: We're already overdue to the next iceage! Every ice
core indicates this very clearly. So please, warn the world against a
coming freeze that could arrive much quicker than any warming.
The easily disproved "out-of-Africa theory" is shockingly bad "science" riddled with errors of fact, attribution - and rafting. An appalling example of science replaced* by PC.
* Peter Klevius is a virgin scientist because he doesn't have to contaminate himself with peer pressure. And his extreme sensitivity for logical criticism saves him from self-delusion. So in his writings there's no bias - only occasional stupidities. Whereas bias is deliberate, stupidity is spontaneous. There was a time when stupid people like Peter Klevius were overwhelmed by fossils from Africa, but also lacking info about ancient DNA and the existence of Homo floresiensis. To his defense Peter Klevius may say that he was at the least puzzled (in Demand for Resources 1992) by the existence of the 280,000 BP mongoloid faced Jinniushan in Northern China and the equally mongoloid faced modern Khoisan people who were said to be the true natives of Africa.
Chimps have absolutely nothing to do with the evolution of the Homo lineage, other than that it's also an ape - although perhaps not that "great" as it's described by afropologists.
Ape
Debbie
Argue et al (2017) suggest Homo floresiensis is a long-surviving relict
of an early (>1.75 Ma) hominin lineage and a hitherto unknown
migration out of Africa, and not a recent derivative of either H.
erectus or H. sapiens.
Peter Klevius likewise suggests H.
floresiensis is a long-surviving relict of an early (>1.75 Ma)
hominin lineage and a hitherto unknown native of SE Asia, and not a
recent derivative of either H. erectus or H. sapiens - because trying to
squeeze H. floresiensis bipedal apelike post-head features into H.
erectus would challenge the very definition of the latter. However, how
would a predecessor to H.erectus have reached Flores if we rely on
existing data about the wide and strong Wallace line current which would
have brought them (dead) to Africa rather than to Flores? Moreover,
out-of-Africa ranters seem to have no problem keeping modern humans
locked inside Africa (or even worse - failing to survive outside Africa)
for hundreds of thousands of years without entering the huge landbridge
to Eurasia that has always existed east of the Nile. But the primitive
H. floresiensis, which - except for its humanlike head and molar
morphology that is more progressive even compared to modern humans -
represents something from Lucy's time that has never been seen in Africa
but is exactly what one would expect from a derived ape.
So
based on available free info Peter Klevius proposes that H. floresiensis
evolved exactly as afropologists say about bipedal australopithecines,
i.e. stepping out from the jungle to the savannah, or at least a more
open landscape, and in the case of Flores, also an open shoreline.
However, nothing forced the australopithecines in Africa back into the
jungle as was the case on Flores during every interglacial. This was the
reason why H. floresiensis got a much better packed and formed brain,
because only those survived who could shrink without losing intelligence
(compare the microchip race of today). And we do know that the cold
periods with lower sea level lasted much longer than the interglacials
which made evolution of bipedalism possible even on Flores and similar
islands. So Flores may well have been isolated all the time but the very
existence of H.floresiensis there for at least 800,000 years may
function as a model for similar evolution on islands which were not
always isolated but still long enough to create H. floresiensis like
archaic Homos which then could enter mainland and hybridize with
relatives who also may have re-entered the former island.
H.
habilis seems to be most like H. floresiensis in several traits. The
youngest H. habilis , OH 13, dates to about 1.65 mya, and we do know
that H. floresiensis was on Flores at least 0.8 mya - and with even
smaller bones than the more recent ones at Liang Bua, which strongly
contradicts suggestions about H. erectus somehow reaching Flores and
shrinking. As H. floresiensis ecolved in SE Asia it means that its
predecessors must be at least equally old as the oldest H. habilis in
Africa, because the latter must have come to Africa from SE Asia during
times when interglacials were warmer than today, hence .
The
oldest fossil (parts of a jaw) attributed to Homo is 2.8 mya, and based
on the first major iceage dip in temperature Peter Klevius hypothesizes
that the Homo lineage started around 3.3 mya.
The naledipithecus is the "star" of the latest African show, while the real star in SE Asia is called "just a hobbit"!
The
enormous fuzz about naledipithecus in South Africa ought to be compared
to the deafening silenec about the s.c. Red Deer Cave people and
Longlin people in China, which really shows the scientific PC bias
sickness at full glory. Naledipithecus is an evolutionary dead end as
everything else in the African fossil dump, whereas the Red Deer
Cave/Longlin Homos may favorably be seen as evolved from H. floresiensis
like Homos. We do know that they belong to the base of mtDNA M9, i.e.
same hg as Tibetan Sherpas as well as SE Asian indigenous people. We
also know that they share extremely primitive traits expected in H.
habilis - and e.g. H. floresiensis. Also consider that the Denisovan
genes in the Sherpas have a setup for high altitude living.
H.
floresiensis' nearly complete right humerus (LB1/50) appears fairly
modern in most regards. However, it's remarkable in displaying only 110
degrees of humeral torsion, well below modern human average. Assuming a
modern human shoulder configuration, such a low degree of humeral
torsion would result in a lateral set to the elbow. Such an elbow joint
would function more nearly in a frontal than in a sagittal plane, which
isn't what one would expect for tool-making. However, H. floresiensis
probably did not have a modern human shoulder configuration: the
clavicle was relatively short, and it has been suggested that the
scapula was more protracted, resulting in a glenoid fossa that faced
anteriorly rather than laterally. A posteriorly directed humeral head
was therefore appropriate for maintaining a normally functioning elbow
joint. Similar morphology in the Homo erectus Nariokotome boy (KNM-WT
15000) suggests that this shoulder configuration may represent a
transitional stage in pectoral girdle evolution in the human lineage.
Instead
of being "puzzling" when not assessed through obscuring "out-of-Africa"
glasses, H. floresiensis is the very fossil one would expect in the
out-of-SE Asia scenario. It perfectly fills the gaps seen in the
"out-of-Africa" mythology. In fact, not a single one of the fossil
species found in Africa evolved there. All primates came out of SE Asia -
as did all other mammals which didn't originate in Gondwana. Moreover,
"afropology" has put a heavy and distorting toll on much classification,
resulting in an extreme overall Africa bias that distorts almost
everything in primatology as well as re. other mammals. So for example,
although most people today admit that as classical portrayed s.c.
"African animals" like deers, giraffes, lions, etc. came out of SE Asia,
there is also no good reason to believe that elephants evolved in
Africa, but a lot of indications for the contrary. And the reason for
this was climate changes in the past causing intermittent landbridges
between islands and mainland in tropical SE Asia. This Africa bias
should be critically scrutinized whenever afropologists stick to their
beloved "rafting delusions".
Peter Klevius can't stop
wondering over serious looking "scientists" going from a heated debate
over where in Africa human evolution originated, to a consensus meltdown
view that "it happened all over Africa" - but not outside Africa.
And according to Wikipedia (2022) modern humans reached Australia 65,000 BP - and Eurasia 5,000 years later!
Every "out-of-Africa" argument is hollow to the very bone:
1.
So many fossils in Africa - which has its unique Rift Valley
smorgasbord where most of the oldest fossils are found. Quantity doesn't
prove quality. However, although there are (not yet) equally old Homo
erectus fossils in e.g. China, there are equally old 2.1 Myr stone tools
possibly made by them. A fossil rarely proves that it evolved there - a
possible exception being Homo floresiensis. And as humans couldn't have
evolved in China - although China is much more diverse than the whole
of Africa - then the fossils in its neighbourhood ought to be even
older. Moreover, the least likely place (except for a few caves) to find
fossil and culture is the SE Asian "cradle of human evolution" because
high sea level now covers former savannah belts etc. and much of the
rest is similar to African jungle area which also lacks fossil.
2.
The "oldest DNA" argument was based on DNA taken from modern
"mongoloid" cold adapted Khoisan people whose ancestors came to Africa
relatively late - i.e. long after the "mitochondrial Eve". And even the
original pygmies were probably there already before the Khoisan people
(but also long after "Eve") although they also had old Homo DNA as
showed by ancient DNA from Holocene fossils.
3. Culture, like
fossils, is dependent on material findings and often difficult to
assess. However, the extreme spike in sophistication radiating from
Siberia to Iberia in the West and Sulawesi in the East 40-50,000 BP
clearly indicates what Svante Pääbo and Peter Klevius (the latter long
before Pääbo) have seen as the sign of a better packed brain setup.
Speciation, hybridization and phenotype
It's important to take into account the difference between
1. speciation, which needs isolation
2. hybridization, which is the opposite
3.
phenotyping, which needs both isolation and staying within a certain
environmental influence to develope - without becoming a new species.
The
end result in the fossil record could be either a new species or a
hybrid. They, in turn, could have various differences in phenotype.
Homos are bipedals but apes "invented" bipedalism long before Homos "copied" it
Homo
bipedalism arose in an island environment. A model, based on
observations of extended-leg bipedalism in wild orang-utans and
supported by the fossil record, suggests that habitual terrestrial
bipedalism derived from arboreal hand-assisted bipedalism in a
habitually orthograde hominoid. This is also supported by a mutation(s)
in homeobox genes governing lumbar vertebra morphology and facilitating
habitual orthogrady, which may have been present in our hominoid
ancestors.
Danuvius guggenmosi is the first recorded Miocene
great 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. This may have caused lordosis (the normal
curvature of the human spine) and moved the center of mass over the hips
and legs, which implies some 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 at an angle as in apes.
Danuvius was likely able to achieve a strong grip with its big toes,
unlike modern African 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. Plantigrade
catarrhine monkeys lack the capacity for suspensory locomotion or to
focus body weight over the knee joint; African knuckle-walking apes lack
strong big toes and thumbs, and have more robust finger bones; and both
lack an extendable knee. Orangutans have a clambering motion too, but
their knees lack weight-bearing ability. The total anatomy of the limbs
suggest Danuvius was capable of a seemingly unique manner of locomotion
called "extended limb clambering". Danuvius 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 seen in apes, and may be a
precursor to obligate bipedalism seen in human ancestors. The
Hammerschmiede site is located in the Upper Freshwater Molasse of the
Molasse basin; by the late Miocene, the Paratethys Sea had dried up and
the Alps had lifted, allowing the expansion of wetland habitats in the
basin. The late Miocene may have been the beginning of a drying trend
characterized by increased seasonality, causing deciduous forest to turn
into a less dense woodland, and fruit and leaf production to occur
cyclically rather than year-round. The late Miocene cooling trend may
have led to the replacement of more tropical flora by mid-latitude and
alpine varieties, and ultimately the extinction.
Primate evolution is a consequence of climate changes
∼60–50 Mya
the sea level was ∼150 m above present while dropping sharply during
middle Eocene glaciations while extending coastlines and creating land
bridges.
Analyses by Fengyuan LI and Shuqiang Li (Chinese
Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 2018) suggest that Plio–Pleistocene
sea-level rises contributed to recent divergence of many species. Their
findings cannot reject the hypothesis that sea-level changes during the
Paleocene–Eocene and Plio–Pleistocene played a major role in generating
biodiversity in SE Asia; sea-level changes can act as “species pumps”.
This is how Peter Klevius described it back in 2004 when he still
believed in continental evolution, and instead of islands used the
Central-Asian passes as the "arteries" through which genes were "pumped"
between the south and the fat- and protein rich north due to climate
changes.
Plio–Pleistocene experienced more than 58 rapid rises
exceeding 40 m hence causing multiple isolations with far-reaching
consequences for allopatric speciation in megadiverse SE Asia, one of
the most geologically dynamic regions on earth. Fluctuating sea levels
also periodically converted mountains into islands. Cycles of
Plio–Pleistocene sea-level fluctuations isolated and connected landmass
and in doing so drove allopatric speciation. Thus, sea-level changes
have been identified as the key factor driving the megadiversity of SE
Asia. Fragmentation of land hence is the key to diversity in speciation.
Fancy rafting "theories" by afropologists are scientifically empty but populist.
Why would early
monkeys raft over the Atlantic ocean when they could climb the
Caribbean mangroves forestover to South America from North America where
we know Rooneyia existed?!And why would recent fully modern Homos stay
inside Africa when early Homos were in China more than 2 Mya?!
Monkeys
and rodents were the first to access South America - by utalizing ever
changing mangrove forests in the geologically volatile structure of
Caribbean and the Panama isthmus.
Not a lesser knuckle-walking chimp ancestor but rather a great gibbon-like one fits the bill for the evolution of human bipedalism.
Sadly,
we have no gibbon-like apes in Africa - only clumsy knuckle-walkers.
Also do note that we're extremely short in supply of timely ape fossils.
There's
something peculiar with naming gibbons as belonging to the "lesser
apes" while chimps are said to belong to the "great apes". And although
gibbon apes are smaller than chimp and gorilla apes, there anyway seems
to be a certain biased hierarchy hiding behind "great" and "lesser". You
don't call an African elephant a "lesser mammouth" do you!
*
Although truly bipedal apes may have existed more than 13 mya, it was
only with the onset of the cooler and fluctuating iceages in late
Pliocene that triggered the Homo lineage to develop a better brain
combined with bipedality.
Bipedality is a hallmark of the
gibbon-human lineage as gibbons also walk and run perfectly bipedally,
unlike the clumsy knuckle-walking chimp - but is thoroughly overlooked
by afropologists because there are no extant gibbons in Africa.
Suspensory activity and human bipedalism both originated from a form capable of both.
Gibbons are the most bipedal of all non-human primates.
The
foot function of gibbons during terrestrial bipedal locomotion, with
high mobility of the foot as well as the regular display of both
arboreal and terrestrial bipedalism, makes the gibbon a model for an
ancestral tree-living hominoid/protohominin.
Extended limb clambering
Fossil
of the right pes of Oreopithecus, Homo floresiensis and Homo sapiens
reveals the transition of a flexible, arboreal gibbon-like foot to an
inflexible terrestrial human foot with Homo floresiensis as a
transitional taxon.
Although a compliant foot is less
mechanically effective for push-off than a `rigid' arched foot, it can
contribute to the generation of propulsion in bipedal locomotion via
stretch and recoil of the plantarflexor tendons and plantar ligaments.
With
bipedalism accounting for 10–12% of their locomotor activities gibbons
alternate brachiation with fast bipedal bouts on large boughs and
branches (diameter >10 cm), and bipedalism is their preferred
terrestrial gait when crossing gaps in the forest canopy. This means
that, despite the high incidence of brachiation, the hind limbs are
important for propulsion generation in gibbons. Like most arboreal
primates,gibbons have a mobile, prehensile foot structure with a
divergent, opposable hallux. The gibbon foot is essentially flat (i.e.
lacks a longitudinal arch as seen in modern humans) and displays a
midtarsal break during bipedalism. The plantar aponeurosis is relatively
weakly developed compared with the human plantar aponeurosis; however,
other plantar connective tissues lying deep to the plantar aponeurosis,
such as the plantar ligaments and the tendons of the digital flexors,
are prominent. Both the long digital flexors and gastrocnemius are
short-fibred, pennate muscles, favouring economical force production and
elastic energy usage. Unlike other nonhuman apes, the external portion
of the gibbon Achilles' tendon (i.e. triceps surae tendon) is
particularly long,comparable in size to the human Achilles' tendon. The
high tarsal mobility and absence of a longitudinal foot arch means that
the gibbon foot cannot act as rigid lever for push-off; however, the
muscle architecture of the lower limb seems to facilitate that the
gibbon foot will contribute to the generation of propulsion via elastic
recoil of plantarflexor tendons and plantar ligaments.
The gibbon wrist was already prepared for bipedalism
One
unique aspect of a gibbon's anatomy is the wrist, which functions
something like a ball-and-socket joint, allowing for biaxial movement.
This greatly reduces the amount of energy needed in the upper arm and
torso, while also reducing stress on the shoulder joint.
As
gibbon-like hominids switched from the above methods of locomotion to
walking on two feet, wrists would adapt to additional tasks. Walking on
two feet freed the hands for other uses. Ancestors became able to use
their hands for throwing and clubbing. The wrists must move in specific
ways to enable these activities. For example, when comparing human
capabilities to chimpanzee capabilities, chimpanzees do not have the
same capacity for extension of the wrists. This could suggest that
changes in the wrist occurred to give humans these capabilities. Major
changes also occurred in hominid hand structure, which made it possible
for ancestors to begin gripping, grasping, and releasing tools with
precision. These changes have had a significant impact on behavior and
the success of the species.
Additional pics related to the post.
Peter Klevius wrote:
Saturday, June 17, 2017
Why were tall men from the south dumber than tall men from the north?
Why has the tallest region in Europe (parts of Balkan) also been the poorest when the next tallest region (Northern Europe) has been the most affluent?
Answer: It's got absolutely nothing to do with tallness - and everything to do with brainpower. Oops, did Klevius say something "blasphemic"? Ok, here's Klevius' defense.
So what if Väinö Myllyrinne had been born into a warrior family some 5,000 ybp and equipped with a brain like, say Klevius (but way more aggressive)? Oops, Klevius did it again.
Height is genetically determined. Stunting because of malnutrition is only between 1-2 cm in a study of the Chinese famine 1959-1961. What has previously been assigned to malnutrition is in fact selection. Growth hormone irregularities are relatively rare.
There's a distinct genetic growth stop at around age 14 for a huge (?) part of the world's population, while others continue growing until the age of 16-18. Mixing of these genes give results that no one so far has studied in more detail. This is the basic reason for height variation among today's humans. Klevius strongly suggests that someone starts a research project based on this Klevius' problem formulation.
However, some continue growing also after their growth spurt. One such an example was the world's tallest healthy man (most exceptionally tall people are sick and die young) the Finnish Väinö Myllyrinta.
Peter Klevius' (who isn't tall) analysis: Because the northerners had access to short and intelligent women to the north of themselves among the hunter-gatherer population, they also got closer to the genetic background of modern humans. So some kids became short, others average, and some tall - and some even blond. Likewise, some got average IQ while a few got the genius gene. And a few became highly intelligent giant warriors at a time when size mattered - especially in sparsely populated areas where hit and run attacks were easy and where they could gather more of the same while going southward. One may assume that these phenomena happened more frequently during bad farming times - which occurred quite often in the vulnerable climatic borderland of farming, and dwelling in dark woodlands in the extreme north added blondness and fair skin.
The tallest people seem to have followed part of haplogroup I-M170. And when it comes to aDNA there are hints that point to the same direction, e.g. some tall ancient human remains in the southern Gravettian ice-age refuges (e.g. Italy).
However, it's mainly tall people from Fennoscandia/Russia (Indoeuropeans and Uralics) who - together with shorter people - constituted the stock from which the technological expansion of the West emanated. This has also led to many misconceptions, i.e. that being tall would somehow be connected to intelligence - no matter how many short geniuses (Einstein etc.) there are. Looking back in prehistory it seems more likely that the opposite is true. However, luckily today we've already messed everything up globally to an extent that it's impossible to tell anything for certain based on physical appearance. So why not just follow James Mallory's Bhuddist advise in the context of Tocharians: Don't believe what you see!
The Vikings, Goths, the Seima-Turbino, phenomenon, Kurgan people etc. are all example of movements of mainly tall male warriors in the first stages. And all of them were closely connected to Uralic speaking cultures.
The unfortunate belittling of first the steppe people and then the Uralic speakers has blindfolded many theories - and maps. Here the Corded Ware culture well overlaps later Uralic areas. Klevius assumes the people there must have spoken relaed languages at the time of Corded Ware.
Haplogroup U descends from a woman in the haplogroup R mtDNA branch of the phylogenetic tree, who is estimated to have lived around 55,000 years ago. An Upper Palaeolithic human who lived in Western Siberia c. 45,000 years ago has been shown to belong to the U* mitochondrial haplogroup. Haplogroup U has also been found among ancient Egyptian mummies excavated at the Abusir el-Meleq archaeological site in Middle Egypt, which date from the Pre-Ptolemaic/late New Kingdom, Ptolemaic, and Roman periods.
Red hair distribution from a northern heartland. The Uralic speaking Udmurts have been described as the "most red-headed" people in the world and having "deep blue eyes".
Blond hair distribution was connected to southern Fennoscandia being
the northernmost place were small scale farming was possible due to the
Gulf stream. However, this part of the farming world was also the
darkest, hence putting immense pressure on vitamin D uptake - resulting
in survival advantage for fair skinned people in the farming/hunting
communities. The northern hunter-gatherers, like Inuits, Sami etc., got
their vitamin D from other sources. 
If, as Klevius working theory suggests, the boost in intelligence, that created the unique paleolithic Eurasian art etc. track from Mal'ta Buret to the Pyrenees, was the result of a Homo floresiensis like tropical island dwarfed brain genetically flowing up in the form of Denisovan to big skulled northern homos, then we would expect a concentration of intelligence genes in the sparsely populated north (because those going back south were diluted by the mass of people already there). Most of these moderṇ (<50 and="" are="" br="" central="" compared="" e.g.="" europeans="" fair="" haired.="" half-northern="" iberians="" most="" nbsp="" nor="" north="" northerners="" not="" of="" relatively="" short="" skinned="" stature="" still="" to="" very="" were="" ybp="">
The tallest people used to live in Australia - already some 40-60,000 ybp.
There are two main unsolved mysteries about height:
1 Where did the tall genes originate?
2 Which genes determine earlier and later growth stop?
Mungo Man's "wife" was found 400 m away from him.
These guys from the Burrup peninsula (Western Australia), photographed in the 1920s, were 200.6 cm and 195.5 cm.
However, most Aborigines are of relatively short stature, and the tall guys above were reportedly even less intelligent than other tribes the Western "conquesters" - to use a word commonly used about muslim colonizers - had met with.
Southern farmers were short and not particularly intelligent
It's a myth that - as Klevius still thought 1992 - that farming caused civilizations. It was only when the gains of farming was utilized by non-farmers that the so called "civilizations" emerged in Mideast. Long before this time there had already been advanced civilizations from Ural to Ukraine.Klevius theory on IQ and human evolution and its relation to stature - the first truly intelligent humans weren't tall.
As you dear reader already know, until proven wrong Klevius analysis of the evolution of modern humans is in its shortest form as follows:1 The early IQ track visible through the Aurignacian art/technology track from Baikal/Siberia to the Pyrenees means something extraordinary happened in the Altai region more than 50,000 ybp when the first sewing needles were already in use.
An extremely sophisticated stone bracelet was produced in Siberia/Altai more than 40,000 ybp. Both the needle above and the stone bracelet were found in the Denisova cave.
2 DNA analysis from the Denisova cave has revealed both hybridization between so called Neanderthals, Homo sapiens sapiens, and a third party, the so called Denisovan who in turn is also linked to Australia, Papua New Guinea and Melanesia.
3 Homo floresiensis proves that a bigger skull can shrink in a tropical jungle/island environment without loosing IQ. So if a similar but opposite (i.e. expanding skull while keeping up the per cm3 IQ) process was at stake among the so called Denisovans when they managed to re-enter mainland Asia during lower sea level, they would sooner or later meet with their big skulled northern relatives in the Altai area. As a resukt some of their kids would get both a big skull as well as high IQ. How many of them is up to guesswork so far but there must have been quite a few (proportionally - considering small population) of them to cause such a rapid spread of what we might call the truly modern human over the world.
However, this spread was far from even. Climatic as well as geographical factors played an important role - compare e.g. Mammoth fluctuation, migration and extinction.
When farming emerged population rapidly increased while stature and intelligence decreased (e.g. compared to the early geniuses in Altai). So when the tall Kurgan people from the Russian steppe met the southern farmers the difference in height could be up to half a meter - and some of the Kurgans also possessed superior intelligence due to their mating connections to the north. So whereas mating with average farmer girls didn't produce many geniuses, the opposite was true when it comes to girls/women from the north.
Klevius will teach you more about this scenario later on but in the meantime he suggests you read the Finnish/Karelian epic Kalevala where
Louhi is a "wicked queen" with magical power of the land known as Pohjola (the North). Louhi promises her eldest and most magnificent maiden daughter to the smith Ilmarinen if he forges a Sampo (or Sammas) which was a magical artifact constructed by Ilmarinen that brought riches and good fortune to its holder.
Klevius wrote:
Friday, March 25, 2016
Klevius' Finland-Swedish Hobbit story
The Dragon of Evil, Tolkien, and Moomin Mum
Everyone (except islamist muslims) seem to agree that islamism is evil. However, many, especially politicians and muslims, claim that islam is "a great and peaceful religion". From this we may conclude that islamism contains both islam and evil in an inseparable connection which poses the question how islam could possibly be without evil. Even more so when considering that the original spread of islam during more than hundred years (before it settled as sultanates simply sponging on slave business - the so called "golden age") was completely based on evil religiously "justified" robbery, slaughtering, raping and enslavement of the "infidels". Islam's problem is it foundation in evil medieval parasitism that it has now brought to the modern society.
The twisted logic that evil islam should be blinked as "islamism" has led to a variety of incomprehensible stand points. For example and ironically, because of muslim terrorists muslims now ask for extra protection against "anti-muslim sentiments" - on top of the general protection already in place. Why? Does this mean that non-muslim right-wing politicians also should get extra protection because of right-wing extremists? However, the worst twist of all is by far the Saudi based and steered (by the Saudi dictator family) all muslim's world organization OIC and its sharia declaration via UN.
Klevius has no knowledge about J R Tolkien's view on islam. However, Klevius is convinced that J R Tolkien would have shared Klevius definition of evil based on Human Rights equality.
J R Tolkien's main hero since he was a boy and throughout his entire life was Kullervo in the Finnish epic Kalevala. Many characteristics of Kullervo can also easily be traced in Beowulf and Hamlet both of whom were Scandinavians from a time when Fennoscandia was known as Kvenland (see further down). This period is called Vendel time after a small village near Uppsala in eastern Sweden which at that time was populated by Finns and some old Nordic speaking bi-lingual "Finland-Swedes" (see more about this further down).
Klevius is convinced that Tove Jansson would have full heartedly approved of Tolkien's choice of such an ambiguous hero as Kullervo.
The official Tolkien calendar of 2016 (left) is illustrated by Finland-Swedish Tove Jansson (aka Moomin Mum).
Tove Jansson has also illustrated Swedish and Finnish books by Tolkien (right). However, she is most famous for her Moomin books and illustrations.
Klevius wrote:
Sunday, August 10, 2014
Finland-Swedish Moomin Mum Tove Jansson 100 years
Back then Hitler (the Germans) cried for more cake - today islam (the muslims) do the same!
A brave caricature, 'more cake' was made by Tove Jansson in Finland during a time when Hitler (the Germans) were considered friend of Finland in its war against Stalin's communist Soviet-union.
Tove Marika Jansson (9 August 1914 – 27 June 2001) was a Swedish-speaking novelist, painter, illustrator and comic strip author from Finland. For her contribution as a children's writer she received the Hans Christian Andersen Medal in 1966.
Tove Jansson is best known as the author of the Moomin books for children and the astonishing The True Deceiver for adults. The first Moomin book, The Moomins and the Great Flood, appeared in 1945, i.e. the same year Astrid Lindgren, an other world famous Swedish speaking author, published her first book about the Tomboyish Pippi Longstocking.
Like Klevius, Tove Jansson belongs to the tiny bilingual Finland-Swedish minority. In fact, access to her summer house on the pic passes a nearby place where Klevius used to live, neighboring a carpenter who used to build Moomin furnitures for Moominland.
However, unlike Klevius, Tove Jansson never had kids. It's even alleged that she felt slightly uncomfortable with kids. So where Klevius has been a family man in practice, Tove Jansson created her family environment as a fiction.
For more on this topic do visit Klevius' Love Letter to Edith Södergran (an other world famous Finland-Swede).
The little bright Hobbit girl and the giant blonde warrior
The people who got the new brain set up were short in stature as most Siberian people were until recently. However, when Seima-Turbino like phenomenons started (possibly even long before Seima-Turbino) big guys who had become blond in the north hunted for cute mongolic looking girls (compare Kalevala). Some of those girls possessed still a great chunk of the original super brain (compare the Denisova cave etc) so some of the kids produced with the blond giants turned up really smart. Their smartness together with a strong physical constitution in a sparsely populated river way landscape with small villages/camps constituted an ideal environment for nomadic robbery. And after some time some of these guys had collected enough financial and man power to go further south. Klevius will in detail explain this development later. Suffice to say that this is also the explanationary basis for why the Goths from the north managed to conquer the whole of Europe.
Klevius wrote:
Saturday, June 20, 2015
Klevius Midsummer quiz: How come that Klevius can read Beowulf but modern Brits can not?!
Klevius question to BBC: Why so much focus on Muhammad and so little on Beowulf?
The epic poem Beowulf, the masterpiece of Anglo-Saxon literature, was composed in pre-Viking time by an anonymous poet. It tells the story of a Scandinavian hero whose feats include battles with the fearsome monster Grendel and a fire-breathing dragon. It survives in a single manuscript dating from around 1000 AD. In form (e.g. alliteration) and content it follows much of the Finnish Kalevala (pictured below). Not the least as how it's influenced by later Christian material.
The simple answer is that as a Finland-Swede Klevius happens to master not only Swedish and Finnish but also old Finland-Swedish dialects - and in an extension most old wordings based on Old Nordic (aka Old Norse) over an area covering all the Nordic countries (incl. Gotland) plus Netherlands, England, Scotland plus most of the north Atlantic islands east of Iceland.
In the 1990s when Klevius studied English at Stockholm University they offered a video recording of a play based on thousand year old English texts. To Klevius astonishment he immediately recognized many familiarities with the East-Nyland dialects Klevius had grown up with. So when two Norwegian linguists a couple of years ago stated that English is a Scandinavian language Klevius applauded them.
So what does this have to do with Midsummer? Well, it's not just linguistics but a load of other familiarities as well, not to mention the fire feasts which may even be traced back to the Celts. And remember that much/most pre-Christian cultural influences are shared within all the Nordic countries.
For a background take a look at Kvenland:
No comments:
Post a Comment