An Essay by
Richard C. Bentinck, M.D.
“Human beings are absurdly easy to indoctrinate. They seek it.”
–Edward O. Wilson, Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, Harvard University Press, 1982.
The diminishing numbers of mankind among the enormous redundancy of hairless bipedal hybrids infesting earth are in serious trouble. While a few perceive the manifestation and are concerned, almost none any longer perceive the root cause. We are deliberately deceived about our origins, misled about our place in Nature and blinded to our future. This is a part of a conspiracy which began long ago. We are slated for extinction.
In 1859, Charles Darwin published his Origin of Species in which he proposed his ideas on the differentiation of species gleaned from his position as a Naturalist aboard H.M.S. Beagle during its circumnavigation of the globe. A.R. Wallace, who stayed at home, had submitted almost identical ideas in 1858 and it was he who first suggested the additional idea of natural selection. Though there was never any enmity between the two, it seems a little unfair that these ideas came to be known only as “Darwin’s Theory of Evolution”.
In opposition to “creationism”, the theory of evolution is based on the recognition that living things change from one generation to the next. Sexual reproduction prohibits cloning; a child cannot be identical to either parent. Changes that are beneficial to the survival and reproduction of an organism result in increased numbers of the strain carrying the beneficial genetic mutation through “natural selection” and “survival of the fittest”. This favored strain, then, is better adapted to its environment and better fitted to survive to reproductive age than its weaker siblings who fall by the wayside. In this manner, the theory claims, over geologic time sufficient favorable mutations may accumulate in multiple generations such that the parent organism is no longer recognizable in descendant generations. And, so the Darwinian theory goes, a new species has been formed – and the process continues ad infinitum.
The genetic component of the creatures at the apex of any lineage will, according to theory, show the greatest divergence from their progenitor. This is logical. Since life on earth is based on essentially identical chemical and physical reactions of energy and form, all living things are more alike than disparate. It is but a short step, then, to a doctrine that all living things must trace their origin to one or more accidents in the primordial soup three-plus billion years ago. If this is accepted as being true, each of the artfully designated categories of Nature called “species” by man, must trace its ancestry in an unbroken stream of evolution flowing back through an almost infinite series of bunched characteristics barely discernible, one from the other, to a group of organisms that seem, perhaps only because of fatigue of the classifier, to constitute the “founder” of the species. The founder is the founder of this particular species because his characteristics, physical or chemical, differ less in series from his offspring than they do from the next most similar animal that seems to have been in existence longer. Thus the “tree of evolution” is built. This sort of classification is useful and necessary to the way we think, but it is still artificial and not necessarily the way Nature ‘thinks’.
The sciences of anthropology, archaeology and microbiological genetics declare that the origins of modern man are traceable back to the chimpanzee, our nearest “relative”. All this supposedly came about through a series of steps up a ladder of progenitors to our present exalted position as the assumed possessor of the best brain of the bunch. This assumption, for that is exactly what it is, that all ‘hairless bipeds’ are consanguineous and originated in Africa appears to be imposed because the evidence does not support such a conclusion. It is the time frame in which Darwin’s theory has been mis-applied to the origin of Homo sapiens, apparently in the interest of being consistent with the present politically correct dogma, that contradicts the evidence. Perhaps such an imposition of an invalid conclusion might be understood in the interest of ‘political correctness’ since, at one stroke, it makes all hairless bipeds ‘brothers under the skin’ as Homo sapiens. This perversion of Darwinism is not upheld by the evidence. However, in academia, to disbelieve a ‘politically correct’ accepted explanation of a phenomenon is heresy. Heresy jeopardizes funding by government and private foundations. The penalty is professional death.
Back about four million years ago, the happy chattering of chimpanzees was interrupted by the sudden appearance, geologically speaking, of a new addition to the African landscape. This brainier creature had a cranial capacity of around 500 cubic centimeters compared to the chimps with a brain of only approximately 250 cubic centimeters. He was the first of the australopithecines (southern apes) whose fossilized bones have been found in the Rift Valley highlands of eastern Africa. Over a little more than a million years, perhaps, there were a number of australopithecines such as A. afarensis (slender australopithecine), A. Africanus (small and slight) and A. Robustus. The australopithecines differed primarily in physical habitus but were similar in the architecture and capacity of the skull.
Just as suddenly about two-and-a-half million years ago, while the australopithecines were still on stage, a new creature appeared. His cranial capacity of about 750 cubic centimeters and a somewhat facile use of tools tended to differentiate him from the less brainy, apelike forebears. First designated a“pithecanthropine” (ape man), recently he was honored with the title of “Homo” so that he could be considered one of us. He was borderline, but given the benefit of doubt, he proudly bore the posthumous title of “Homo Habilis”.
After wandering the Rift Valley for about a million years, “Homo” Habilis disappeared also but not before he was disturbed, perhaps even frightened, by the sudden appearance of a quite formidable creature 1.6 million years ago. This creature was first known as Pithecanthropus Erectus because of the similarity of the bones he left behind to those of the apes. He is considered to have fully descended from the trees and to have spent all his time upright except when sleeping. Recently be also was voted into the fraternity of man as “Homo” erectus, more clearly a political than an anthropological decision, because his cranial capacity of 1000 to 1200 cubic centimeters was a little larger than that of the pure Congoids whose promotion had preceded his.
The gradual changes in form as postulated by Darwinian evolution were not found in Homo Erectus any more than they had in “Homo” Habilis or the australopithecines. For over a million years until about 500,000 years ago, “Homo” Erectus existed with no significant change in his fossil remains. He remained identifiable as the same species throughout this period during which the earth had undergone cataclysmic changes.
And then, as the accepted paradigm would have it, at some disputed point in the past as long ago as 750,000 years or as recently as 35,000 to 40,000 years ago, Homo sapiens sprang into being. Literally, he had to have leapt an immense evolutionary gap all at once. From our postulated forebear with a brain of only about 1200 cubic centimeters maximum and virtually no development of the allimportant frontal lobes, protruding mouth parts (prognathism), no vocal apparatus functionally capable of modulated speech, and no chin after a million years of changeless monotony, he suddenly, like the fairy prince, changed into a fully modern human being.
In order to fit this scenario, profound changes particularly in and about his head had to have occurred. His skull had to become larger and thinner and modified in its shape with a high forehead allowing for a larger brain averaging 1450 cubic centimeters, disappearance of the heavy brow ridges, prognathism had to disappear and he had to develop a chin. But above all, the character of his brain had to change. The frontal lobes, allimportant to the abstract and creative thinking necessary to the development of a civilization, had to appear as a functional attribute. This enlarged brain had to become more convoluted with consequent quadrupling of the area, volume and neuronal density of the allimportant cerebral cortex. This all required an increased blood supply as evidenced by vascular indentations in the interior of the skull. In short, to our brain and particularly to the frontal lobes, we owe our civilization, our inventiveness and our future. Without the frontal lobes of an advanced brain, no matter how enormous the rest of the brain might become, such creatures would be nothing more than ingenious chimps with a vocal apparatus and a mean streak. It could make all kinds of noise, but it would make no sense. It would be, as we see and hear so often now, mere primitive vicious and vile nonsense.
All these presumed forebears, clearly delineated by immutable fossilized characteristics – and by the artefacts of living that often accompany them – presented a profound embarrassment to those who want to link us all together in one great ever-evolving family proceeding gradually to some socialistic Utopia of secure enslavement. Classical Darwinism could not explain the great gaps! They even renamed Pithecanthropus erectus (apeman) as Homo erectus in the forlorn hope that semantics might somehow erase this barrier between theory and reality. The gaps just would not go away no matter how industriously the archaeological digs were dug. The gulf between the chimpanzee, the australopithecines, “Homo” habilis, “Homo” erectus and the real Homo sapiens is still there. There are no intermediary forms as required by the gradualism required by true Darwinian evolution. “Gradualism” simply does not exist!
At first, the obvious excuses for the failure of classical Darwinism were made, “The transitional fossils are there. We just haven’t found them yet.” So, they dug and dug and dug some more. No transitional forms have been found. Darwin’s theory seemed done for and with its demise would go that long-treasured plan to link all hairless bipeds into a single “brotherhood” called man.
This was a critical point for the continued existence of Darwin’s idea as a scientifically valid ‘theory of evolution’ as applied to man. Any theory in order to have scientific validity, among other considerations, must be capable of disproof. As applied to man, the ‘theory’ stood in limbo. It could be proved by demonstrating gradually evolved links between the chimps, the various presumed progenitors of man and man himself. It could be disproved only by proving that such intermediary forms did not exist. But this is impossible! It is manifestly impossible to prove a negative. As such, then, and at this juncture, Darwin’s theory of evolution had no validity as a scientific statement insofar as the origins of mankind was concerned. It was simply somebody’s idea that could not warrant further scientific consideration or expenditure of funds in the pursuit of something neither provable nor unprovable.
In 1954, Ernst Mayr (1) found an ingenious solution to the dilemma. It was called “punctuational evolution”. Received at first with skepticism, he reasserted his idea in his book, Animal Species and Evolution, in 1963 when it aided his move to Harvard as one of the leading evolutionists of the century. Somewhere, his idea must have struck a chord. Not until the 1970’s when two noted paleontologists, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and Stephen Jay Gould, also of Harvard and probably despairing of evidence to support what had been accepted as the proper interpretation of Darwin’s theory, urged official recognition of Mayr’s idea. (2) It is now an essential component of the academically fundable paradigm. The International Bankers approved.
“Punctuated Equilibrium” postulates that the course of evolution is not one of gradual change (“gradualism”). Rather, it postulates that a species can exist for long periods without significant change until mutations produce occasional jumps in the characteristics of the parent genus large enough to originate a new species. It is held to be more likely to occur in smaller, isolated groups rather than in the enormous interacting populations of today. The idea is not universally supported by paleontologists. It is sometimes referred to as “evolution by jerks”.
There are some formidable problems with the notion of “punctuated equilibrium” as applied. The physiochemical and behavioral characteristics that shape every individual as well as his species are determined by his genes – his genetic makeup. Each gene is made up of thousands of base-pairs of organic acids (nucleotides) each of which determine the form of a specific protein necessary for the form and fact of the living being. Long strings of genes form the chromosomes which are present in every cell of our body.
Genes are subject to mutation. This means that one or more of the hundreds of thousands of base-pairs that make up a gene are changed. In Nature, this is a random process. The agents that cause such changes are called “mutagens” and are largely unknown but include such agents as radiation, various chemicals and viruses. When a gene mutates, the protein it was coded to model is changed. Since form and figure are believed to derive from the configuration of the extremely complex large molecules called proteins, the influence of a new and different protein among the untold multitude that comprise our bodies may be profound. Almost all mutations are harmful. The carrier is either spontaneously aborted, dies sooner after birth than would be normal or fails life’s contest in some other manner.
Once in a while, a mutation is favorable and the carrier has been given some sort of slight, often invisible advantage in life. It might be so unnoticeable as just a few days longer reproductive life than his or her contemporaries. This might be just enough time for one additional pregnancy. If that progeny carried the same trait as a dominant, the trait would be manifested in his or her offspring regardless of whether or not his or her mate carried the genetic equivalent. And there are further complications such as ‘penetrance’, associated unfavorable combinations, convergence, genetic drift and others to the gradual establishment of even an almost insignificant trait in a population. If it is possible to create a new mammalian species by this method, an enormous number of favorable mutations would have to be accumulated in a population over a period of time.
In real life, the prospects for “punctuated equilibrium” do not look nearly that good. For example, to change from “Homo” erectus to Homo sapiens, the brain would have to increase in volume by almost 50% along with monumental skull, jaw, tooth and body changes. Even though the percentage difference in the nuclear genome between man and any of his presumed progenitors may be less than two percent, the total number of base-pairs, the mutable element, represented in this small percentage is in the hundreds of thousands.
To make matters more unlikely to the point of virtual impossibility, the physical manifestation of whatever number of mutations would be necessary to create a new species in order to demonstrate the observed gap, would have to have been held in abeyance until they all could be exercised virtually simultaneously! But it gets worse.
It has been estimated that favorable genetic changes in order to become established and persist in a species over time must involve populations of at least 500 breeding individuals. This means that the requisite number of mutations of base-pairs within the genes would have to occur consistently in at least 500 individuals. The expression of each these mutated genes would then have to be held in abeyance in each of these 500-plus individuals over whatever time was required to accumulate sufficient genetic change for the birth to each of the mothers of a baby so profoundly different from his parents that he would constitute a new species. How many mothers would suckle a creature so different from themselves?
For these reasons, the doctrine of “punctuated equilibrium” as applied to the origin of Homo sapiens is an impossibility. It cannot explain the lack of fossil evidence to support a link between man and his presumed progenitors.
Nevertheless, the accepted doctrine remains locked in its logic-tight compartment. The forces dedicated to the destruction of non-hybrid man are enormous. Basking in the warmth of political sanction and secure with an approved mechanism for the acceptable interpretation of data that was also viewed with favor by the funding sources, academia proceeded to attempt to extend and reinforce the official dogma with advanced microbiological techniques.
There are two sets of chromosomes in every cell: the nuclear and the mitochondrial. The nuclear chromosomes are retained within the cell’s nucleus and are derived half from each parent of sexually reproducing organisms like us. Both the female ovum and the male spermatozoon contain half the chromosomal makeup of their contributor – that is, the mother and the father will each be represented in the nuclear chromosomes of their offspring. A great mix-up of the maternal-paternal DNA takes place in the fertilized ovum. This makes the tracing of long-term lineages using nuclear DNA extremely difficult and inexact.
That is where the mitochondrium enters the picture. The mitochondrium is a discrete little organelle in every cell. It is the cell’s energy factory. It contains only 37 genes (thousands of base-pairs) but uniquely, these are usually transmitted only from the mother without paternal contribution. The spermatozoon also has a mitochondrium, but usually this is broken off and discarded along with the tail during penetration of the ovum.
By manipulation of the genetic material of various types of hairless bipeds, “molecular anthropology” – as this process has been named – came up with the pseudoscientific conclusion that modern “humans” arose as a completely original species between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago in Africa and only in Africa (3).
Dubbed “African Eve”, this “original mother of us all” was pounced upon with delight by the hybrid-directed media. “Eve” with her “Adam” were portrayed as highly hybridized café-au-lait mulattos holding hands in an African Eden on the cover of Time Magazine. A somewhat less attractive black, prognathous couple covered with hair adorned the cover of Discover Magazine.
The joyous affair between the resurrected Eve and the elite-directed prostitutes of the media is understandable. This at once, if not just another myth, defeated all those evil “racist” separatists by establishing that we are all “brothers under the skin”. All of a sudden, there could be no such thing as miscegenation. The multitude of differences between whites and blacks were gone in a flash. The interbreeding of whites and blacks was now de rigeur. Hollywood could continue showing blacks and whites pawing and screwing each other ad nauseam. The Illuminati smiled covertly.
There are many problems with the “Eve Hypotheses”. It is loaded with assumptions and requirements that are either on shaky ground or totally in conflict with fact and with each other. To begin with, another African presumed hominid, “Homo” erectus had made his home throughout Europe, Australasia and East Africa long before the advent of Eve and her progeny. Supposedly “Eve’s” children, spurning his sexual advances or too fastidious to rape his females, killed them all instead.
Since “Homo” erectus was a fairly rugged and competent beast who may have coexisted with this proposed “Eve” in Africa and, if so, perhaps some of his kind could have been part of her lineage, this replacement theory seems farfetched. Besides nowhere in history has there been a lack of at least a few human animals who would rape whatever they could catch or would submit sexually to whatever. Even similar species are not a requirement of such couplings.
The idea that this completely new species from Africa totally replaced indigenous “hominid” populations all over the world cannot be supported. Fossil evidence shows that modern Chinese, Australasians and Europeans each resemble their local predecessors with no sign of hybridization with archaic immigrants from Africa at any time (4, 5). The fossil evidence, Wolpoff and others claim, indicates that modern man originated in several places rather than one. So, among the experts, there is a large question of the proposed relationship of modern man to this hypothetical “African Eve”.
The studies that created “Eve” and placed her birthplace in Africa were reported by Cann, et al in Nature in 1987 (3). A follow-up extension and refinement was reported by Vigilant, et al in Science in 1991 (6) and by Wilson and Cann in Scientific American in 1992 (7).
These and similar studies are based upon comparisons of maternal mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from five different geographic/“racial” populations: European (United States), African, Australian (aboriginal), Asian and New Guinean. Sequence differences of the mtDNA samples were reported as percentages of divergence, one from the other and from the chimpanzee. It was assumed that the less the divergence, the closer the ancestral relationship. The method used in the first study to compare mtDNA’s and to root a phylogenetic tree was criticized in that the authors gave no statistical justification for inferring an African origin. The genealogical tree was deemed to have been corrected in the second study by relating the sequence differences found to those of the chimpanzee, presumably our nearest tree-dwelling African relative. This is the so-called “outgroup method” which suggests that some may not be too happy with the assumed relationship. He is not really one of “us”.
Aside from those already mentioned, the researchers base their procedure, results and conclusions upon even more assumptions, some of which are highly questionable:
1.) Maternal mtDNA types in common indicate a genetic relationship of descension of the somatotype.
This need not be true and certainly is not always true. Each codon in the DNA molecule codes for a specific amino acid or protein. All living things have in common some proteins as well as many of the amino acids of which proteins are composed. Thus it is equally possible that identity merely represents an mtDNA sequence that is common to other living things or, alternatively, simply due to chance.
2.) The transmission of mitochondrial DNA is strictly maternal, unaltered by diffusion of other mtDNA.
Just as the maternal oocyte contains its mitochondrium, so does the male spermatozoon. The male gamete’s mitochondrium contains DNA derived from a different female lineage unless the mating is incestuous (son with daughter or his mother). The sperm’s mitochondrium lies at the junction of the tail with the head. Ordinarily only the head of the sperm penetrates the oocyte and the tail, along with the mitochondrium is discarded.
But Nature does not always work as we intend. It seems reasonable that once in a while the sperm’s mtDNA might sneak into the ovum along with the head and that some recombination of DNA’s might occur. This would add a random variable to complicate the claim that the mtDNA of the daughter cells is identical to that of her mother.
3.) The lineage of African mtDNA is unbroken.
The original article reporting this line of research, implied a single “mother of us all”, and called her “Eve”. This was almost certainly done for publicity purposes as part of the agenda of the establishment. Such a unitary origin is manifestly impossible.
They forgot that maternal lineages die out when there is no daughter to carry on. The estimated time required for all but one lineage to disappear from a stable population is the length of a generation in years multiplied by twice the size of the beginning population. A single “Eve” would soon become the ancestress of none.
Since a minimal population of 500 breeding individuals is considered necessary to establish a trait, this would have required at least that many “Eve’s”. Moreover, the mtDNA of these “Eve’s” had to have differed from each other less than that of modern Africans because differences are assumed to increase over time. A population of only 500 would have gone extinct after about 20,000 years, assuming each generation time to be 20 years. If all this started somewhere between 90,000 and 249,000 years ago, as the authors variously suggest, a beginning population of between 2000 to 6000 would have been necessary in order that there would today be survivors. Numbers, however, may not be a problem since population geneticists (8) have indicated that the African population at that time may have been as large as 10,000. If this formula is correct, we also must apply it to all those motherly chimpanzees five to nine million years ago who had to exist in order that we have chimps for medical research and entertainment today. Assuming a conservative generation length for chimps of ten years, there would have had to be between 250,000 and 450,000 of them,
That a large number of breeding females existing under conditions even more primitive than their progeny in Africa today would have more homogeneity in their mtDNA stretches credulity.
4.) The lineage of mtDNA is unbroken by diffusion and represents strictly the founding population.
The authors, being highly “politically correct”, indicate that, while blacks may bear many non-African nuclear genes, by implication their mtDNA is pure African because “any non-African genes have been contributed by Caucasian males”. However, blacks rape white females 1000 times more often than a Caucasian male rapes a black female. Similarly, voluntary miscegenation between a white male and a black female is much more rare than is a sexual relationship between a white female and a black male. In such situations of miscegenation, the progeny of a white female and a black male will display easily identifiable negroid characteristics such as skin, eye and black, kinky hair because of genetic dominance of these characteristics. Such progeny, even as a first generation hybrid, will be less likely to be acceptable to the white community and more likely to breed with a black. Within two or three generations, such hybrids will be physically, socially, and most importantly, behaviorally indistinguishable from black Africans. This process has been going on for a long time. Such “miscegenated female” maternal mtDNA will thus appear among modern groups designated as African and skew the average sequence divergences closer to the non-African. Accordingly, few if any modern-day “Africans”, regardless of where they may be – and particularly so-called “African-Americans” – can be considered sufficiently “pure African” to base upon it an hypothesis on the origin of all mankind.
5.) All evolution of mtDNA proceeded to diverge linearly toward modern man.
Obviously, this did not occur because there are profound differences between the various types of hairless bipeds that presently exist.
6.) By implication, intergenerational incest does not occur.
Such a ridiculous implication is not acceptable for either the
modern chimpanzee or Homo sapiens. We are reminded almost daily of its violation.
7.) All mitochondrial lineages “evolve” at the same rate. In other words, the rate of mtDNA mutation is a constant in all groups.
The authors base this assumption on their finding that “all 14 human sequences are nearly equidistant from the chimpanzee sequences”. In further support of this contention they point out that since “chimpanzees commonly show as much as ten times the genetic variation of human”, this alone suggests that “all of modern humanity sprang from a relatively small stock of common ancestors”. However, elsewhere in another context they point out that the sequence differences are greater among Africans than any other group and that the African sequences are closer to the chimpanzee sequences than are the others. Following the same line of reasoning but placing their findings in the same context, may this not suggest instead that they are two separate groups? Could we be dealing with two separate species?
Furthermore, since non-Africans from North Africa, the Middle East, Asia and Europe to a lesser extent, have been present as slavers and otherwise in sub-Saharan Africa for thousands of years, it would seem likely that there are few, if any, black Africans without some non-African DNA in their genome. This miscegenation at once would help account for the greater variability in the African population as well as a closer apparent genetic relationship than otherwise might exist.
Mutations occur because of ontological error and external environmental influences such as radiation, toxins, diseases and the cultural milieu including eugenics. The length of the reproductive life, the frequency of conception and the number of viable offspring are also important in the assessment of any population and its relationship to others.
Considering the primitive, violent and disease-ridden lifestyle of even modern-day Africans wherever they may be, one could reasonably expect a greater rate of mutation and divergence over time of mitochondrial and nuclear DNA than in populations with advanced cultures.
All these factors would tend to magnify the divergence of the African group from the chimpanzee and diminish the apparent difference from the other four groups.
From another approach, equal rates of mtDNA evolution simply do not hold. The shark, for example, apparently has changed hardly at all in millions of years. And, closer to home, the fossils of “Homo” erectus indicate virtually no change in the million-and-a-half years of his existence. But all the variants of dogs have been “evolved” by “unnatural” human selection from the wolf in about twelve thousand years.
That mtDNA “evolved” at a uniform and constant rate seems no more than a hazardous guess used in hopeful support of a questionable hypothesis. Could there be something wrong with the concept?
8.) The divergence of maternal mtDNA accumulates at between 2% to 4% per million years.
This assumption is based upon the presumption that the lineage through the australopithecines, “Homo” habilis and “Homo” erectus to modern Homo sapiens broke off from the chimpanzee lineage somewhere between five and nine billion years ago plus the assumption that all the other assumptions, conjectures, inferences and implications are valid.
Then, calculating how much humans had diverged from each other relative to how much they had diverged, apparently on the average, from chimpanzees, the authors, in their 1991 paper, arrived at a ratio of 1:25 (4). Thus human maternal mtDNA diverged among the modern groups one twenty-fifth of the amount the group average had diverged from the chimps five to nine million years ago. This would mean that the modern hairless biped lineage began from multiple “Eve’s” somewhere between 200,000 and 360,000 years ago, considerably longer than estimated in the original paper naming “Eve”. Wilson & Cann in the article in the April, 1992, edition of Scientific American (7), prefer the 200,000 figure.
There was less difference between the maternal mtDNA of the African group and that of the chimpanzee or, in the author’s terminology, the assumption was made that the African group was “more deeply rooted”. Since percentage divergence already had been related to time, this made the African group the oldest and, since Africans and chimpanzees hail from Africa, the presumed “Eve’s”, the mothers of us all, lived in Africa.
If the numbers marking the hours on the face of a clock were in constant random motion and only the hands moved steadily, it would be extremely difficult to tell the time. One could never navigate an unknown sea by such a timepiece!
9.) Each of the four non-African groups has multiple origins due to multiple colonizations by diverse genetic stock.
New Guinea is considered the exemplar whose population the authors consider to have been founded by many mothers whose maternal lineages were most closely related to Asia. The multiple linguistic variants among the Papuans are considered confirmatory.
On the other hand, based on their assumption that they consider Africa the source of all human maternal mtDNA, they consider the African group as a single cluster. This in spite of the fact that the mtDNA diversity is greater among the Africans than any other group and that Africa is noted for numerous quasi-languages. This seems a bit like tilting the data to fit the hypothesis.
But there is a single crucial assumption which alone, if not true, collapses the entire structure. That is the hypothesis that all hairless bipeds are related and are derived from a single presumably mutant stock in Africa. It is upon the slippery ground of this assumption that their phylogenetic “tree” was grown.
The data from each of these studies is used to produce a “tree”. By either “midpoint” rooting as in the first study or by the “outgroup” method in the second study, their “tree” has two primary branches. One primary brunch is composed entirely of six African maternal mtDNA types while the other branch consists of all the remaining mtDNA types found in the other four groups.
Cann, et al, tied the branches to the single postulated trunk of the tree by manipulating the data to produce a tree of minimum length based on its requirement of fewer point mutations. This “tree” was considered statistically more “parsimonious”. The parsimony principle requires that data be connected in the simplest possible way.
In accord with the African-origin hypothesis, Vigilant, et al, pursued two different methods to graft the two disparate branches to a common trunk. The first called the “winning sites method” found that the African origin required fewer mutations than did an Asian root.
Their second method looked for the “deepest root”. Again presuming a single trunk for both branches and looking only to determine which of the five geographic groups, considered to be related, was rooted most closely to the chimpanzee tree, found that the African cluster was the “deepest” by a significant factor.
There is one enormous problem with these and similar studies using the methods of “molecular anthropology”. While it is true that “gene sequences are not shaped by theoretical prejudices” as noted by Wilson and Cann, hypotheses are. There need be no error in the technical methodology. Like so many human endeavors, a structure that appears magnificently and logically true will collapse into a wreckage of lies if close scrutiny shows it to be founded on a false premise.
Such is the case in these applications, of the new “molecular anthropology”. Everything is based upon the hypothesis of a unity of African origin. That is, all hairless bipeds are assumed to have evolved through the processes of natural selection from a strain of apes in the manner approved by the theory of Wallace as fine-tuned by Charles Darwin almost 150 years ago.
The magnificent work in the laboratory of these modern “molecular anthropologists” created a “phylogenetic tree”. Most significantly, they found that this “tree” has “two primary branches”. If one ignores the “African origin hypothesis” and looks at all the data and at the data only with unprejudiced eyes, he discovers that these are not two branches of a single tree. They are not branches at all. They are two separate trees!
Cann, et al, in their study reported in 1987 analyzed the maternal mtDNA of 145 persons and two cell lines for a total of 147 samples. These 147 samples from five different population groups are described as follows: Group 1, 21 Australian aborigines; Group 2, 46 Caucasians; Group 3, 26 New Guinean aborigines; Group 4, 34 Asians; and Group 5, 20 Africans including one “African-American”.
They found 135 different types of maternal mtDNA. Of these types, 7 occurred in more than one individual, none appeared in more than one of the five groups and no individual had more than one type. The 7 shared types occurred only among 3 of the 5 groups: they did not occur among either the Asians or Africans (Table I).
Type 1 (2)*
Type 2 (3)
Type 3 (2)
Type 4 (2)
Type 5 (3)
Type 6 (3)
Type 7 (6)
* Number in parenthesis is the number of individuals sharing the type
If these 5 groups were all derived from the same source, the probability that this distribution of groups of random data would have a value of zero, that none of these 7 types would be found among either the Asians or Africans, is 7 chances in ten million! To make an analogy, this means that in a single barrel of apples, there have to be some green and some red apples. Blindfolded, at random I took out of the barrel some apples and stopped to count. I found that I had taken out of the barrel, 93 apples of which 21 were red. Blindfold back on, I continued taking apples out of a barrel, counting as I went along this time until I had another 54 apples. If this second pick of 54 apples had come out of the same barrel, by chance I would have picked out 12 red apples. But there were none! The chances of this happening as the result of random choices out of the barrel are about 7 times out of ten million! That means, impossible. Something had to be wrong. What happened? Having been blindfolded, I had to have reached into another barrel in which there were no red apples. The result can be explained only in this way.
Excluding the Asian group, the chances that none of the African group would share none of the 7 shared types becomes two out of 100. This suggests that the Asian individuals selected for this group may have originated in southern Asia or the Philippines where there is a likelihood of African admixture. In neither of these studies did the author give any genealogical history of their selectees.
Vigilant, et al, (1991), (6) studied mtDNA of 189 individuals and identified 135 different mtDNA types which “fall into 31 clusters that are exclusively African and 24 clusters that are exclusively non-African”. It was upon these figures, considered to be based upon the African origin hypothesis which allowed them to be related in kind, that they were able to base their “tree” in Africa.
But, if it is not assumed that all hairless bipeds originated in Africa and the figures are examined without this prejudice, they tell a different story. The data of Vigilant, et al, shows that there were 135 different mtDNA types found among the 189 hairless bipeds of the same 5 groups. Of these 135 different mtDNA types, 31 are exclusively African and appear among 140 native Africans and 24 types are exclusively non-African and appear among 49 individuals. Employing the same statistical method upon these figures and letting the figures tell their own story, the probability that the two clusters are related is 5 chances in a million! That is not a good bet.
The data from the Vigilant study also showed that of the 135 different mtDNA types found in the 189 individuals, 16 types appeared more than once but only in the Africa and New Guinea groups except in one African-American. Of the 189 individuals, there were 121 native Africans, 8 African-Americans, 20 Papuans, 1 Australian Aborigine, 15 Europeans and 24 Asians.
The 16 shared types appeared only among 68 individuals of the 129 individuals of known African ancestry and the 20 Papuans, but not among any of the 39 European or Asian individuals. Applying the “apple barrel analogy” as before, but to these different types of shared mtDNA, the probability that none of these 16 shared types would appear among the groups of 15 Europeans and 24 Asians is 3.713! That is, 0.00000000000037 if these groups are part of the same population with the same African origin! In other words, the population of hairless bipeds which originated in Africa cannot be related to Europeans and Asians grouped together! Further statistical support for this conclusion is found in the “hypothesis test”(9).
Even if the Papuans, Australian Aborigines and Africans are presumed to share the same origin, the probability that Europeans and Asians are related is still only one chance in a hundred! And this is without knowing anything of the genealogy of the individuals selected. In today’s world, in some populations some individuals who pass casual inspection as either Caucasian or Asians assuredly have some black ancestral admixture. If the selection process is not carefully done in order to avoid this error, the results will be skewed and the reality of different origins more strongly confirmed.
This all means that based on these studies by the methods of “molecular anthropology”, the hypothesis of an African origin of all hairless bipeds is false. It confirms that, while “gene sequences are not shaped by theoretical prejudices”, hypotheses and even theories may be. The “tree with two primary branches” turns out to be two separate trees! Africans and non-Africans are two separate species based upon their origins.
Many paleontologists, archaeologists, and anthropologists disagree with the conclusions reached through “molecular anthropology”. Their quarrel is primarily with the time lines it proposes and the assumption that some upstart emigrant from Africa exterminated and replaced all other “hominid” populations everywhere as short a while ago as 200,000 years. However, despite the hurdles supposedly surmounted by the doctrine of “punctuated equilibrium”, professional academia remains properly tied to the umbilical cord of the chimpanzee as mother of us all justified, in their opinion, by fossil evidence carefully selected to support the officially-ordered concept of Darwinian-style evolution of species.
The professionals wish only to bury, ignore or change a few dates, do away with any aesthetic perceptions in long-ago intellectual capabilities – and, perhaps, sexual derelictions – in order to be able to bestow upon our alleged ancestors a less discriminating, dumbed-down way of life. To the myth of the “brotherhood of man” and other socialistic ideas, the possibility of two separate trees seeded and growing into saplings in different lands would be heresy. The New World Order, conceived long before Darwin unknowingly showed a means of its attainment, could not tolerate such anathema. It could destroy the entire backup process for the destruction of a Homo sapiens. That is truly the meaning of genocide.
The existence of two entirely separate origins for the hairless biped is not contrary to the fossil or artifactual evidence either. In fact, both the artifactual and fossil evidence viewed objectively and in their entirety demand different origins just as does the data derived from the genetic studies.
The advanced doctrine of political correctness, as already noted, dates the advent of man as a twig from the chimpanzee lineage over 4 million years ago. Accordingly, the first of our ancestors to begin the climb up this broken ladder of evolution were the various australopithecines marked most notably by their increased brain capacity of 500 cubic centimeters to 600 cubic centimeters instead of the measly 200 cubic centimeters to 300 cubic centimeters of the apes. From fossil evidence, the australopithecines existed until about 1 million years ago. Along about 2.5 million years ago, some australopithecines supposedly ‘jumped’ into something more advanced. With a brain of around 750 cubic centimeters, this somewhat advanced creature was no longer considered “pithecine” or ape, but “homo” – one of us. He was called “Homo” habilis, the clever man, the first toolmaker.
Tiring of his lowly status, some contemporaries of “Homo” habilis purportedly ‘jumped’ again about 1.6 million years ago and became suddenly “Homo” erectus. He was no longer very good at swinging through the tree tops. He had a brain of about 1000 cubic centimeters to 1200 cubic centimeters. Being better at travel on land, he could traverse areas where there were no trees. Either on his own or possibly involuntarily, he left Africa. He left his fossil and artifactual remains over Europe and Asia at least and lasted virtually without change until about 500,000 years ago. Some think he may have lasted longer and made it to the isolation of outback Australia about 60,000 years ago. If so, the fact that even his larger brain was still not all that good is suggested by the fact that, in all that time, the Australian Aborigine never made the connection between sexual activity and childbearing.
Some claim that Homo sapiens evolved about 500,000 years ago from “Homo” erectus in situ from his residences in Europe, Asia and Africa. First he was Homo sapiens and then as he naturally got brighter, Homo sapiens sapiens. This is the theory of multicentric origins whose advocates strongly oppose the “Eve” hypothesis.
With a brain of over 1400 cubic centimeters, larger than our 1400 cubic centimeters average, the Neanderthals, are thrown in to complicate matters. They appeared in Europe about 100,000 years ago. Despite an apparently rather advanced culture, they disappeared as uniquely identifiable fossils about 35,000 years ago. Some paleoanthropologists feel they were too ugly to invite rape and assimilation. Others believe the more likely event that they were simply absorbed into the larger more vigorous population of Homo sapiens.
However, to preserve the idea that modern man descended from apes through a process of slow, though “punctuated”, evolution directed by natural selection, it has been necessary to limit his age as a species. The time of his origin had to be placed within the span that his presumed immediate ancestor could have existed. For obvious reasons, he could not be allowed to preexist his own parents. Any artifactual evidence of the use of tools or of fire or actual fossils of Homo sapiens that antedated the appearance of “Homo” erectus, “Homo” habilis or especially the australopithecines would instantly convert the Darwinian hypothesis into an untenable myth and any application to the origin of man would cease to exist.
Such evidence, does exist – reliably and in profusion. The entire diaspora of man as taught today is false. Though only a single such instance is required to destroy the .approved concept, several will be mentioned.
Fragments of skeletal remains of modern man and of stone tool artefacts have been uncovered in the gravels of Tertiary river beds as a result of mining operations for gold and silver at several sites in California. Some have been found at depths of 180 feet beneath a lava cap at the ends of over a hundred feet of horizontal drifts beneath Table Mountain in Tuolomne County, California. These gold-bearing Tertiary placer gravels were deposited over 8 7 million years ago according to potassium-argon dating of regional andesite deposits (10).
A human vertebral segment (atlas) was unearthed from strata dating back to the early Pliocene (3 to 5 million years ago) at Mount Hermosa in Argentina (11). Also in Argentina in a late Pliocene formation at Miramar, stone tools, a mammalian bone with an arrowhead embedded in it and a fragment of a human lower jaw were found (11, 12, 13).
A modern woman’s skull was found near Castenodolo, Italy in a stratum dated Middle Pliocene (34 million years old) (14, 15). Mammoth bone with cut marks from a sharp instrument and stone tools dated 300,000 to 750,000 years old were found in the Anza-Borrego Desert of California (16). A vigorous review of flint and bone tools from Pliocene-Eocene detritus below Red Crag, England, are “genuine tools – whose legitimacy as products of human industry cannot in the least be challenged” (17). Also found in the detritus beds beneath Red Crag is a carved shell, a bola stone and pierced teeth (18, 19, 20).
Paleolithic tools, incision marks on bones by sharp instruments indicating butchering, bones deliberately broken for extraction of marrow and signs of fire pits with pieces of burned bones were found by F. Ameghino in the Santa Crucian formation in Argentina dated as Early and Middle Miocene (15.25 million years ago) by Marshall, et al in 1977 (21).
In a deposit in Kenya dated at 12.5 to 14 million years old (22), Louis Leakey discovered fossilized animal bones “where the bones have been broken up, and where the damage includes excellent examples of depressed fractures of the types usually associated with a ‘blunt instrument’ – (and) – also a lump of lava with every appearance of having been used to smash bones” (23).
Advanced paleolithic tools were found at Shequinandah, Manitoulin Island in Lake Huron, Canada in excavations carried out between 1951 and 1955 by Thomas E. Lee, an anthropologist at the National Museum of Canada. The tools were bifacially chipped and included projectile points. Four geologists dated the beds at a minimum of 30,000 years, perhaps as old as 150,000 years (24). Since these dates do not agree with official doctrine and Lee persisted, he was at first ridiculed and finally hounded from his civil service position.
The earliest fossil of a modern human found in Kenya, Africa is a humerus identified as Homo sapiens and dated at 4.0 to 4.5 million years old (25, 26). The next earliest human fossil is dated at 2.2 to 3 million years old and was found in a limestone quarry, in Sterkfontein, South Africa in 1946. It is part of a femur “characteristic of modern man” (27, 28).
The next earliest human fossil was dated about 1.7 to 2.0 million years old. In Olduvai Gorge formations in Kenya, Louis Leakey found a jaw and human skull fragments described as Homo sapiens sapiens (29). Other fossils of Homo sapiens found in Africa and dated to about the time “Homo” erectus appeared are a talus (heel bone) (30) and a humerus (upper arm bone) (31). From that time forward, numerous fossil and artifactual finds in Africa and elsewhere testify to the coexistence of Homo sapiens and “Homo” erectus until the apparent worldwide disappearance of “Homo” erectus about 500,000 years ago.
Even the proclaimed idea that man first trod the western hemisphere only 12,000 years ago by way of a land bridge across the Bering Straits is refuted by a mass of evidence that had to be ignored or ridiculed in order to support official doctrine. Recall that Thomas E. Lee lost his job at the national Museum of Canada because he found paleoliths that contradicted the theory designated as acceptable. But the rigid control of scientific thought may be breaking down a little. In 1977, a UCLA archaeologist and geophysicist, Rainer Berger, found evidence on Santa Rosa Island off Santa Barbara, California, that confirms human presence 40,000 years ago and perhaps as long as 70,000 years ago (32).
The fossil, artifactual and “molecular anthropological” evidence are in agreement. The Darwinian hypothesis as applied to the origin of man is wrong! However, a process of continuous “evolution”, meaning change of the genotype over time by natural selection from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex or better state, may occur within species to a limited extent. During his span of existence, “Homo” erectus showed negligible change as, over their millions of years of existence, do the shark and the land crab.
The reverse, devolution, also occurs. The reduction of the average mental age of the ‘human’ population that has occurred over the last century at least as a result of ‘unnatural’ or human selection is a good example. But Darwinian processes as proclaimed do not account for Homo sapiens as a species. Just as no living thing can preexist its parents, Homo sapiens cannot have come into being by descent from the chimpanzee through the australopithecines, “Homo” habilis and “Homo” erectus. Homo sapiens preexisted the australopithecines and the pithecanthropines! The molecular evidence confirms what the complete fossil, artifactual and biological record foreshadows and logic demands. There are two kinds of hairless bipeds on earth with totally different origins. There are two distinct species! One race of the two races of Homo sapiens now constitutes only about 12% of the world’s population. Long targeted, he is well on the way to extinction.
The genesis of Homo sapiens disappears into the mists of an extremely remote past. Artifactual evidences indicative of the presence of human beings with an advanced culture exist far into the age of the dinosaurs. A grooved metallic sphere found in a Precambrian pyrophyllite deposit in South Africa (24) or metallic tubes found in 1968 embedded in chalk 65 million years old from a quarry in France (25) and others (26) only deepen the mystery. More importantly, they demand as more and more chinks appear in the hidebound armor of socialized mechanistic science, an open mind. The tales that persist in folklore of advanced civilizations deep in the past, like Atlantis, Lemuria and Mu, may indeed have some basis in fact. After all, our present ‘civilization’ can date its origins to only thousands of years ago. How many advanced civilizations, not necessarily structured in reinforced concrete, might have come and gone without a trace over the millions of years fossils prove a human presence on earth?
But the evidence shows that something else happened in Africa. The series of pithecines ancestral to the species of hairless biped originating in Africa, is not explained. Gene sequences of the mtDNA of those living hairless bipeds whose ancestry unequivocally leads back to Africa clearly do exist as a distinct entity. Logic and biology defeat any idea of Darwinian descent of this creature from the chimpanzee by a series of leaps from one proposed progenitor to the next. The ridiculous idea of “punctuated equilibrium” must be laid to final rest.
Nevertheless, this series of creatures did exist and they existed in a hierarchical order of diminishing arboreal and increasing bipedal adaptation along with jumps in brain size. Somewhere along the line, probably not until the last jump, there developed the vocal apparatus that permits the rudimentary speech of primitively modulated grunts and screeches that still characterize the hybridized representatives of this species.
This lineage of comparatively puny pithecine creatures survived at first because it was arboreal and then, as it grew larger and bipedal, the premium was placed on bigger brains rather than prehensile toes and a tail. The increasing brain size allowed it to contrive tools while its hands permitted the use of crude tools as equalizers against stronger, faster creatures. The brain remained fairly simple with relatively few and shallow convolutions, virtually no frontal development, a thin cortex and a meager blood supply.
The modern inheritor of this lineage is the African Negro. Until recently, geologically speaking, he existed in isolation in the jungles of West Equatorial Africa. His brain at about 900 cubic centimeters in its pristine African state is a little smaller than that of his presumed immediate forebear, “Homo” erectus or, originally more correctly named, Pithecanthropus erectus.
About 8 million years ago, the Great Rift Valley formed in Eastern Africa as the result of tectonic forces. The Rift Valley runs for about 1800 miles in a northerly direction from near the mouth of the Zambezi River in southeastern Africa to near the mouth of the Omo River at the Red Sea. The forces of plate tectonics which formed the valley also raised a chain of high mountains separating the eastern third of Africa climatically and geographically from the western two-thirds. All bipedal fossils have been found without exception on the eastern side of the Rift Valley. Western Equatorial Africa remained as hot and humid jungle while east of the mountains became dry, grassy savannah.
The genus Pan, the chimpanzee family of primates, was separated. The Panidae to the west of the Rift and the chain of mountains were able to continue their existence in the protection and bounty of a jungle. Those to the east of the mountains in the Rift Valley were forced to adapt to changed conditions or die. Spotty tree cover interrupted by broad areas of medowland severely compromised an arboreal existence. It placed them in direct competition with other surface animals and particularly greater exposure to large carnivores.
That changes did occur in the Paindae is proved by a rather confused and confusing collection of fossils appearing as far back as the Miocene. While still clearly Panidae, these bits and pieces of fossilized bone suggest changes over million of years from a purely brachiating existence in the trees to some bipedalism along with some increase in brain size. Up to about 4 million years ago, the anthropoid (manlike or ‘hominoid’) ape, Pan troglodytes or chimpanzee had not changed into a new species. This intraspecies process of evolution or adaptation to changed environmental conditions had not turned Pan into a new species any more than if had other animals of the savannah with which he coexisted.
About 4 million years ago, something new appeared in Africa. This was Australopithecus, the “Southern Ape”. This creature, of which there are several variants (australopithecines), is classed as the first of the Hominidae, the family of modern man, the genus Homo. This was a new genus. With a cranial capacity greater than the standard chimpanzee, the head displayed a cross between apelike and humanlike features while below the neck, his physical development was much like that of a small, modern human. Other animals of the savannah remained clearly identifiable with their forebears over time, but this animal had jumped into something very different. How?
“Punctuated equilibrium” or “evolution by jerks” has been shown to be inconsistent with logic. A reasonable explanation consistent with fact, including the nature of man and monkey, is intervention by a superior being. Homo sapiens already existed. According to fossil and artifactual evidence, he was already on every continent except West Equatorial Africa. The earliest fossil of Homo sapiens found in Africa was the fragment of humerus from Kanapoi, Kenya. It was found in 1965 and dated at 4.0 to 4.5 million years old. Time, place and opportunity seem to have coincided.
Modern man has 46 chromosomes; the modern chimpanzee has 48. Although rumors exist of at least trials of cross-fertilization of these two species, I am aware of neither success nor failure. This in itself may be significant. Failure would be common knowledge, but success would be disturbing. Obviously, somewhere in the past, equalization of the numbers of chromosomes between either the ancient Pongid lineage or the Pithecine lineage and Homo sapiens must have existed. Regardless of the scenario, interspecies fertility has to have occurred in order to give rise to the pithecines. It seems most likely to have occurred some time during the roughly 4 million years that the antique chimpanzee was doing some intraspecies evolving in his early attempts to adapt to life on the savannahs of East Africa.
Common knowledge holds that breeding across species lines does not occur. But it does. It is fairly frequent among living things. Sometimes the result is sterile like the mule, the offspring of a male ass and a mare. Sometimes the hybrid offspring is not sterile like that of a wolf and a coyote or a tiger and a lion.
Few researchers agree upon a definition of ‘species’. A species is commonly taught to describe a population of organisms that can at least potentially interbreed and that does not breed with other populations. A definition more in accord with what actually happens, is not so limiting. A species is, after all, merely the result of man’s passion to classify in order to better understand what he sees. It is an invention of man, not of Nature. A phylogenetic concept defines a species as the smallest recognizable cluster of individuals that share a common trait and have a common pattern of ancestry. This alone clearly differentiates Homo sapiens. As in so many things human, universal agreement on the definition of species may never occur – or there may be many different definitions according to the goal or branch of scientific endeavor. Yet life, with its many variations, ignores our quibbling and simply goes on.
Following the finding of the fossil 4 to 4.5 millions years old in Kanapoi, the fossil record of Homo sapiens in Africa remains blank until something over 2 million years ago. A femur “characteristic of modern man” was identified as 2.2 to 3.0 million years old (27). This is more or less coincident with the first appearance of “Homo” habilis (Pithecanthropus habilis), the first toolmaker, 2.5 million years ago. He was similar to the australopithecines but had a larger brain of 600 to 750 cubic centimeters
It was some 900,000 years until the next jump when “Homo” erectus (Pithecanthropus erectus) appeared about 1.6 million years ago. He stood 5 to 6 feet tall and had a cranial capacity of 1000 to 1200 cubic centimeters, nearing the 1450 cubic centimeters average of Homo sapiens. Like his forebears, his fossil bones show that he closely resembled modern humans except for his head with its sloping forehead, massive brow ridges, large jaws and teeth, prognathism and a steeply receding chin.
And again after a blank period, fossil remains of Homo sapiens roughly coincident in time with the appearance of “Homo” erectus were found in Africa. This is the so-called “Kanam Jaw” discovered by Louis Leakey and dated to the Early Pleistocene about 1.7 to 2.0 million years ago (29). From that time onward, the finding in Africa of fossils identifiable as Homo sapiens has been less unusual.
This little scenario suggests, though by no means proves, that Homo sapiens first entered the Rift Valley about 4 to 4.5 million years ago and then left – or died out in Africa – only to return on two separate occasions 2.0-2.3 million years ago and again 1.7 million years ago, thence to remain. Of course, he may have remained steadily in the Rift Valley from even before 4.5 million years ago to date. But it seems more than mere coincidence that Homo sapiens was in the Rift Valley in the three eras in which significant “jumps” in the characteristics of the indigenous populations of pithecines occurred. The explanation that the australopithecines, “Homo” habilis and “Homo” erectus are the result, over perhaps thousands of years of interventions by Homo sapiens fits. Most likely, the intervention was as simple as miscegenation or it could have been complex as some sophisticated means that we cannot yet conceive. “Punctuated equilibrium”, however cannot be the explanation.
As far back as about one million years ago, “Homo” erectus was not just in Africa, but his fossil remains and artifacts have been found in Europe, Asia and Java. He and Homo sapiens coexisted outside of Africa for at least 500,000 years and perhaps longer. The origin and character of this temporal relationship between Homo sapiens and a similar bipedal creature with a primitive brain lacking development of the frontal lobes is speculative. Not just brain size, but increased area, cellularity and thickness of the cerebral cortex due in part to more and deeper sulci and also to development of the frontal lobes, all dependent upon an abundant blood supply, are related to creativity and required in the development of the social cooperation that engenders civilization. “Homo” erectus lacked these attributes.
It seems probable, therefore, that Homo sapiens was the controlling element in any relationship of continuing contact between the two species as is modern man with his pets. It is possible that Homo sapiens was responsible for the diaspora of “Homo” erectus from Africa. It is also more than likely that Homo sapiens was responsible for the disappearance of “Homo” erectus from Africa, Europe and Australasia.
If “Homo” erectus, as a primitive species, multiplied indiscriminately and became a serious problem, it surely would have been within the capability of Homo sapiens to hunt him down and remove him. Lacking significant development of the frontal lobes of the brain, this creature would have been incapable of moral sensibility. Probably, he was an extremely violent creature, even to his own kind. Today, he would be called a violent criminal. He certainly would have had no capacity to recognize that he was an artificial creature, the end result of a series of interventions by a superior intellect or even miscegenations between his pithecine progenitors and Homo sapiens. Nor would he have had the capacity to realize that his distant relatives were the chimpanzees of the savannahs of eastern Africa. Nor would he have been able to understand that his chimpanzee ancestors certainly would have been exterminated by predators had the lineage not been saved by intervention.
His removal could have been undertaken by primordial Homo sapiens for abstract as well as practical reasons. The dangers of the perpetuation of a very different species capable of senseless violence may have been recognized and lent necessity to the gradual extermination of this unnatural creature.
A few pithecanthropines may have survived. As already noted, some anthropologists consider that the Australian aborigine is a remnant that was isolated in the outback of this isolated continent 60,000 years ago. Other remnants could still survive as the occasionally glimpsed, almost mythical creatures like Sasquatch and the Yeti.
Others may have found refuge in the isolation of the lush jungles of Western Equatorial Africa where Homo sapiens, more adapted to drier, more cool climates did not go. Here, because of ease of living and abundant food for the taking, Pithecanthropine erectus may be represented today by the West African Negro. Some devolution due to the lesser demands of his jungle habitat may account for the smaller brain (about 900 cubic centimeters) of the pure West African Negro. Another alternative for the genesis of this modern species of African could have been hybridization between “Homo” erectus and “Homo” habilis. This also could account for the smaller brain.
Whatever may be the origin of the West African jungle negro, whether he is a devolved Pithecanthropus erectus or a compound hybrid resulting from miscegenation between Pithecanthropus habilis and Pithecanthropus erectus, he is not Homo sapiens. He is not mankind. To be scientifically correct, he should be termed Pithecanthropus niger and his forebears, Pithecanthropus erectus and Pithecanthropus habilis.
After the disappearance of Pithecanthropus erectus some 500,000 years ago, Homo sapiens pursued his gradual cultural and genetic evolution in Europe, Asia and the Americas. Interpopulational gene flow, influenced by climate and prolonged periods of glaciation, was certainly minimal for thousands of years. This genetic separation of segments of the Homo sapiens population explains the differentiation over geologic time into the large racial divisions of Caucasoids and the Mongoloids that exist today. Even though made untenable by numerous fossil and artifactual finds, modern anthropology continues to teach with a vengeance that Homo sapiens first invaded the Americas only 12,000 to 15,000 years ago by way of the Bering Straits land bridge and a corridor in Alaska and Canada through retreating glacial ice. Certainly this immigration to the Americas occurred but just as certainly Homo sapiens was already here. And certainly the two races of Homo sapiens interbred.
In Europe, a somewhat anomalous creature, the Neanderthal, existed between about 100,000 and 35,000 years ago. With a robust, heavily-muscled body and heavy brow ridges and a brain that was somewhat larger than the average for Homo sapiens, he had a tool-making culture equivalent to that of his more gracile contemporary. His origins and fate are controversial. That he arose as a variant Homo sapiens, developing his distinctive features because of his northern European habitat and then, driven south by increasing glaciation, he merged into existing populations of Homo sapiens seems the most probable scenario. This is essentially the view of Milford Wolpoff of the University of Michigan and others (5). I think we all have seen heavily-built individuals with prominent brow ridges and big noses who attest to the persistence of this genetic strain. Other anthropologists, however, believe Homo Neanderthalensis disappeared without a trace.
Until about 13,000 years ago, the African negro, Pithecanthropus niger, pursued undisturbed his unchanging primitive, hunter-scavenger-gatherer life style. Until then, Africa was the home of Africans only (33). In the equatorial jungles, protected by desert to the north, high mountains and possibly hostile somewhat more advanced possibly hybrid creatures to the east, dry savannah and desert to the south and the sea they never conquered to the west, the African Negro eked out a precarious existence in primitive and violent squalor. Left to his own, it seems likely that he would by now have drifted quietly into extinction as much from his innate violence and cruelty as anything else.
But this was not to be. Slavery has existed probably as long as mankind. The presence of “Homo” erectus in Europe and Australasia some million years ago could mean that he was actively exported from Africa as a useful animal by Homo sapiens. As far back as recorded history can take us, the losers of confrontations between groups, even of Homo sapiens, were either killed or enslaved.
But Homo sapiens make poor slaves. They are rebellious and too apt to turn the tables on their masters. They do not take well to slavery even finding death preferable. The Spanish Conquistadores learned this after some fifteen million Homo sapiens indigenous to the Americas died at their hands. At the urging of Father Bartolome de las Casas and with Papal sanction, the importation of West African negroes to the Americas was begun. Already used for thousands of years elsewhere as slaves, they were manageable as long as their deficiencies were recognized, durable and, besides, they had no souls. They were not human according to the more objective Papal and social acute perceptions honesties allowable in that day.
So, sometime after about 13,000 years ago when the peripatetic culture of Homo sapiens began to settle into a more geographically stable mode, the exportation of the African negro for use as a menial slave began. This was – and is – a tragedy.
It is a tragedy, but not because the negro was used as a slave. The negroes exported were slaves in Africa rounded up and sold by negroes. Their condition as slaves away from Africa are and always have been incalculably better than their plight in Africa under negro slave-masters. The real tragedy is that the two species, so different beyond their naked bipedal status, can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. The hybrid result of such miscegenation can never be, no matter how far removed, free of the African taint. This is only too evident in the primitive squalor of the multitudes of hybridized populations that pollute the earth at an exponential rate. Miscegenation is the most egregious crime against Nature that mankind can commit. By it, he destroys forever that which Nature created.
Only a few years ago, miscegenation was against the laws and taboos of Caucasian civilization. Yet today, the Illuminati-controlled media promote and encourage this crime by every possible means. This control reaches into academia, all branches of science and the entire educational system. This control is not new. Born of the elite long ago, it is an octopus.
It can be seen only as a deliberate act that fossil and artifactual evidence that establishes that Homo sapiens preexisted the ancestors “political correctness” would force us to accept as ours, is ignored and covered up. The fossil and artifactual evidence, confirmed by evidence derived from “molecular anthropology” when viewed objectively, establishes incontestably that there are two species of hairless bipeds with entirely separate origins on earth. Darwinian evolution as used today cannot describe the origin of Homo sapiens.
The apparent involvement of the Carnegie Institution and Rockefeller Foundation in this deception (34) gives a clue to the underlying agenda which dates back over 2000 years. Once called a conspiracy, it is no longer. It is in the open. The Illuminati and the world bankers are confident they have, at long last, won their secret war.
Today, it is called the “New World Order”. Tomorrow, the whispered word will be “slavery”. Homo sapiens does not take well – nor long – to slavery. He is, and always will be – and as long as he exists – a danger to the ruling elite, most if not all of whom also are hybrids. This might explain their hatred and self-sequestration. Homo sapiens must go.
There is a proved method of genocide that, though it takes time, always works. It is a method whose effectiveness increases exponentially as it is applied. It has been occurring at an explosive rate for the last 3000 years or more. It cannot miss! It is miscegenation. In the bodies of the progeny of such a union, miscegenation hides a genetic parasite that can never be removed. Always it is there, passed to each succeeding generation. And the saddest words that ever were, ‘what might have been’, are imposed upon each afflicted generation forever. Each is condemned to be less than it might have been.
As an implement of genocide, it may have been recognized and deliberately used by the Illuminati since the first century of the current era. They are patient.
Miscegenation with Pithecanthropus niger is being used to destroy Homo sapiens and his civilization just as it destroyed the Egypt of the Pharaohs long ago. For all of recorded human history, what is termed “interracial” breeding or miscegenation, has been a taboo, tragically, as in Egypt, often broken. Until just a few decades ago, it was illegal in most civilized nations. Only recently has official approval been openly advocated. Now, most of the media encourage and display this interspecies sexual obscenity.
During the Upper Paleolithic Era (30,000 to 5,000 B.C.E), Europe and Northwest Africa were occupied by Homo sapiens sapiens (Cromagnon man) whose features are now found most frequently in Ireland and the North Sea nations such as Norway (33). They, blond and blue-eyed, were the early Pharaohs who created the glorious days of Ancient Egypt. The “Nubians” (black Africans from south of the Sahara) during these times were imported and used as slaves. The reign of Pharaoh Amenhoteph III was the zenith of the Egyptian civilization (35). It ended 1357 B.C.E.
Over the millennia, a burgeoning flood of blacks from sub-Saharan Africa has caused the population of Egypt to become increasingly darker, and their brains to become smaller (36). Egypt is the most obvious, once phenomenally great civilized nation, to be laid supine in Third World status, its ancient glory buried beneath a sea of mud. The social disorder and environmental destruction rampant in Hispanic America also is attributable to the ‘taint of black’ in the once advanced indigenous populations. TAKE HEED!
One cannot help but wonder. Does the chapter, Genesis, of the Judeo-Christian Bible have some basis in fact? Is it simply misinterpreted? Was the original sin of mankind his act of intervention, however performed, that preserved the genome of the doomed East African Pongid giving it survival as a new lineage with which hybridization is possible? Could he have punished himself and decreed his own destruction by his failure to have recognized that this creature is a chimera? Was Adam seduced by the plight of a cute little furry Eve trembling with Pongine passion on the branch of a tree in an East African Eden four-and-a-half million years ago? Did he beam “Eve” up to his ship for alterations or did he succumb to her sexual invitation? The long-ago scenario had to have been one of these.
Or was his crime, not his original sexual tampering with Nature, but his failure to have corrected his error? The elimination of Pithecanthropus erectus from most of the world was a good beginning, but a job undone is a job never begun. Something unnatural and terribly destructive remained sequestered in the equatorial jungles of West Africa. Through continued miscegenation, this chimera has gained the semblance of man and is now poised to be used to complete the destruction of its wayward creator.
Is mankind’s loss of the will to do what is necessary to preserve himself and all things of the living earth perhaps his greatest crime?
1. Ernst Mayr, “Change of Genetic Environment and Evolution”, in J.S. Huxley, A.C. Hardy and E.B. Ford, eds., Evolution as a Process, 1954.
2. Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould, “Punctuated Equilibrium: An Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism”, in T.J.M. Schopf, ed., Models in Paleobiology, 1972.
3. Rebecca L. Gann, Mark Stoneking and Allan C. Wilson, “Mitochondrial DNA and Human Evolution”, Nature, 325:31, Jan. 1,1987.
4. M. J. Johnson, et al, Molecular Evolution, 19:255-271, 1983.
5. Milford Wolpoff and Alan Thorne, “The Case Against Eve”, New Scientist, 37-41, 22 June, 1991.
6. Linda Vigilant, Mark Stoneking, Henry Harpending, Kristen Hawkes, Allan C. Wilson, “African Populations and the Evolution of Human Mitochondrial DNA”, Science, 253:1503, September 27, 1991.
7. Adlan C. Wilson and Rebecca L. Cann, “The Recent African Genesis of Humans”, Scientific American, 68-73, April, 1992.
8. Allan C. Wilson and Rebecca L. Cann, ibid.
9. Walpole and Myers, Probability and Statistics for Engineers and Scientists, Macmillan, 1989.
10. J.D. Whitney, “The Auriferous Gravels of the Sierra Nevada of California”, Harvard University, Museum of Comparative Zoology Memoir, 6(1), 1880.
11. L.G. Marshall, S.D. Webb, J.J. Sepkoski, Jr., and D.M. Raup, “Mammalian Evolution and the Great American Interchange”, Science, 215:1351-1357, 1982.
12. C. Ameghino, “El femur de Miramar”, Anales del Museo Nacionale de historia natural de Buenos Aires, 26:433-450, 1915 in Forbidden Archeology, Ref #34.
13. E. Boman, 1921 in Forbidden Archeology by Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson, San Diego, 1993, 6.2.5.
14. G. Ragazzoni, “La collina de Castenedolo, solo il repporto aritropologico, geologico ed agronomico, Commentari dell’Atenio di Brescia, April 4, 1880” in Forbidden Archeology, 6.2.2. Ref #34.
15. W.B. Harland, A.V. Cox, P.G. Llewellyn, C.A.G. Pickton, A.G. Smith, and R. Walters, A Geologic Time Scale, Cambridge University Press, 1982.
16. D. Graham, San Diego Union, October 31, 1988.
17. M. Lohest, P. Fourmarier, J. Hamal-Nandrin, C. Fraipont, and L. Capitan, “Les silex d’Ipswich: Conclusions de l’enquete de l’Institut Internacionale d’Anthropologie, Review Anthropologique, 33:44-67, 1923 in Forbidden Archeology, Ref #34.
18. H. Stopes, “Traces of Man in the Crag”, British Association for the Advancement of Science, Report of the Fiftyfirst Meeting, 1881 in Forbidden Archeology, Ref. #34
19. E. Cbarlesworth, “Objects in the Red Crag of Suffolk”, J. of The Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 2: 9194, 1873 in Forbidden Archeology, Ref. #34.
20. J.R. Moir, The Antiquity of Man in East Anglia, Cambridge University Press, 1927.
21. L.G. Marshall, R. Pascual, G.H. Curtis, and R.E. Drake, “South American Geochronology: Radiometric Time Scale for Middle to Late Tertiary Mammal-bearing Horizons in Patagonia”, Science, 195:13-25, 1977.
22. K.W. Butzer, “Geological Perspectives on Early Hominid Evolution”, in C.J. Jolly, ed., Early Hominids of Africa, London, Duckworth, 1978.
23. L.S.B. Leakey, “Bone Smashing by Late Miocene Hominidae”, Nature, 218: 528-530, 1968.
24. T.E. Lee, “Shequiandah in Retrospect”, Anthropologic Jour. of Canada, 10(1):28-30, 1972.
25. B. Patterson and W.W. Howells, “Hominid Humeral Fragment from Early Pleistocene of Northwestern Kenya”, Science, 156:64-66, 1967.
26. K.P. Oakley, B.G. Campbell, and T.I. Molleson, Catalogue of Fossil Hominids, Part I, Africa, Second Edition, London, 1977.
27. C. Tardieu, “Morphofunctional Analysis of the Articular Surfaces of the Knee-joint in Primates”, in A.B. Chiarelli, and R.S. Corrucini, eds., Primate Evolutionary Biology, Berlin, 1981.
28. C.P. Groves, A Theory of Human and Primate Evolution, Oxford, 1989.
29. L.S.B. Leakely, “Recent Discoveries at Olduvai Gorge”, Nature, 188: 1050-1052, 1960.
30. B.A. Wood, “Evidence on the Locomotor Pattern of Homo from Early Pleistocene of Kenya”, Nature, 251: 135-136, 1974.
31. B. Senut, “Outlines of the Distal Humerus in Hominoid Primates: Application to Some Plio-Pleistocene Hominids”, in A.B. Chiarelli and R.S. Corracini, eds., Primate Evolutionary Biology, Berlin, 1981.
32. “Early Man Confirmed in America 40,000 Years Ago”, Science News, 111: 196, March 26, 1977.
33. Carleton Stevens Coon, The Races of Europe, Macmillan, New York, 1939.
34. Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson, Forbidden Archaeology, Bhaktivedanta Institute, San Diego, 1993.
35. James Henry Breasted, A History of Egypt, Second Edition, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1937.
36. Phillip Bonner, “Were the Pharaohs Blond?”, The Barnes Review, Number 14:39, November, 1995.
SOURCE: The Liberty Bell, March 1997