* The only thing you have to suffer
is Peter Klevius repeated naming of Peter Klevius. However, this
extremely strange behavior from someone calling himself "the extremely
normal" (except for his high IQ disability) you may rather accuse "the
scientific community" for. Ask yourself, if Peter Klevius published
analyses (since 1981) about evolution, brain/consciousness, sex
segregatio/heterosexual attraction, the modern social hermit "Homo
filius nullius", anthropology, sociology, etc., are at least on an
average level, then why is his name almost never mentioned in the
to Peter Klevius, "Out of Africa" and "Flat Earth" "theories" are
identical twins - except that the former is politically correct, gets
more money, and isn't a gimmick.
Under the anti-science slogan "science is activism" the "pan-African" "out-of-Africa" delusion has become the ultimate scientific meltdown represented by afropologist* Chris Stringer** and others
* 'Afropologist'/'afropology' in Peter Klevius writings of course has nothing to do with s.c. afro hair style (just check the pic of Chris Stringer). It's also worth mentioning that Peter Klevius was quite hopeful when Chris Stringer some years ago announced some sort of hesitation re. "out of Africa". However, now when the evidence is mounting against "out of Africa" he seems to retard back. Why?!
** Peter Klevius of course excuses Chris Stringer and other afropologists if their charlatanism is due to low IQ. But then the question arises: Why are they given so much space in what is supposed to be a scientific community?! And of course most of us know the answer, i.e. because it's considered PC and all scientists have to first eradicate "racism" before making "science" - which of course eliminates the very core of science. However, this is also why Peter Klevius is the only one capable of doing (mostly) unbiased science in evolutionary anthropology. And although being an Atheist is a necessity for unbiased science, it's seen by PC people as a grave flaw and morally despicable. He would never have been allowed into the "afropologist community" camp no matter what IQ, recommendations, credentials, books, papers, theses, original groundbreaking research etc.. And the other side of the coin is of course that when Peter Klevius realized it, he also saw it as his responsibility to defend science, precisely because of what his brain, knowledge and bias free situation offered. There can't be many anomalies like Peter Klevius on the planet, right. However, although the Earth isn't flat it's certainly PC and contains a lot of madness. Moreover, Peter Klevius is certainly an extremly boring guy in the eyes of mentalists, religionists, supranaturalists, psychologists etc., because no one has ever seen him unstable or strange in any sense - incl. himself. Peter Klevius to the world: 'Houston! We'we got a problem if Peter Klevius isn't "normal".'
Klevius thinks Chris Stringer should have abandoned the hilarious "out
of Africa" charlatanism long ago. Most of us consider creationists funny
guys. However, Peter Klevius doesn't really see any difference compared
to afropologism. Moreover, Chris Stringers idea about Nenanderthals
having a "too big" visual cortex, which redued their capacity for social
interaction. This reasoning rests on a fallacy that could have easily
been corrected if Chris Stringer had read Peter Klevius theory (EMAH) on
how the brain works, i.e. that there's no qualitative difference
between visual or other forms of thinking. In other words, "visual
thinking" can be equally "social" as any other.
What really triggered this lengthy post was when Alex Timmermann and his team recently scandalously reported that they for half a year had kept an expensive supercomputer busy by calculating 2 million years of human evolution with the variables climate change and Homo speciation (as they thought seen in fossils). However, with this approach they actually tried to open an already open door called out of SE Asia. The simulation gave data linking climate change to human evolution and speciation - and that's exactly what Peter Klevius (for free) has said for more than a decade. However, precisely because of the PC but hoax "out-of-Africa" and populist 'climate change' (and not having read Peter Klevius) they interpreted the result exactly opposite to what it showed.
Acknowledgement to the magazine called Nature which erroneously and uncritically publishes almost whatever rant as long it's "out-of-Africa. Only if Nature arranges for the proper editing and proofreading to make the presentation "appear more serious" may Peter Klevius consider allowing Nature to publish it. However, the chance for this to happen is almost nil - but do let me know if you're interested in real science! Yes, admittedly Peter Klevius is equally negligible as Thomas Kuhn's anomalies - to a point of no return when a period of cover up starts, still trying to avoid Peter Klevius. If Peter Klevius out of SE Asia theory is even close to reality - hence making "out-of-Africa" impossible - then Nature has to completely rethink its position, because it has had at least the same information available as has Peter Klevius - meaning its editorial policy should have been much more critical against many afropology papers it has published.
"Out of Africa" rests on a set of in-commensurable premises.
genetic "evidence" for the past is based on contemporary DNA and locked
into the same closed room as the ridiculous idea of borders within a
borderless Africa, which rarely are open - but when opened, then in no
time over real borders brings early Homos over the Wallace line to Sahul
while only making it to Europe tens of thousands years later! And when
much older Homo sapiens show up in Eurasia, then it's explained away by
afropologists as: 'They didn't make it!'
Having not the slightest clue about human movements between Eurasia and Africa, but a lot of confused guesswork and admitting there was a lot of such traffic, while stubbornly claiming that humans evolved* in Africa and only rarely managed to step out over the vast and most of the time easily accessible Sinai bridge to Eurasia, is just pathetic. It's almost like an unconscious stand-up comedy show when afropologists with a serious face tell people that humans reached Australia some 10,000 years before the rest of the world outside Africa. And their explanation is in fact 100% in line with Peter Klevius, i.e. that they followed routes where their fossils now are under water - except of course that Peter Klevius boring scientific explanation reverses the direction, and therefore lacks the afropologists' punch line needed for real comedy.
* When eventually "out of Africa" believers have to accept Peter Klevius theory they will probably (and there are signs they already do) try to stretch the concept of evolution to include minor effects of hybridization and biogeography and local climate changes. But the reality seems to be just the opposite, namely that perhaps all primates and most mammals post paleocene may be evolutionarily traced to SE Asia. The shaky concept of Afrotheria is just one example. No matter if we are talking tarsiers, lemurs, New World Monkeys, or even elephants, there's no firm ground under the feet of afropologists. And the desperately comical idea of "monkeys twice rafting over the Atlantic ocean to South America" is thoroughly dismissed not only by logic* but also by a tiny fossil called Rooneyia. Also consider the hasty and populist but completely unsupported naming of Afrotarsius.
* Uncertainty about the climatological and tectonic effects on monkey migration from north to south America ought first to be considered before laughable but PC afro-guesswork.
The extreme pro-out-of-Africa bias that is easily spotted all over the web, should already in itself be a warning sign for anyone openminded. Similar bone engravings as the even older Eurasian ones, when found in Africa are immediately piled to the "Africa first in the world" heap and even declared mathematical inventions, while no one has even thought about doing such a stupid assessment about the Eurasian ones. And because of this bias researchers and institutions happily create fanciful but easily sold charlatan "science" from it. And a 73,000 bp "hashtag" in Southern Africa is highly celebrated by afropologists and thrown at ignorant viewers, while a similar but 500,000 bp "hashtag" from SE Asia is somehow completely forgotten.
De-puzzling Homo evolution by releasing it from its political inprisonment on the African continent.
Peter Klevius answers the most stupid question in anthropology: Why are we now alone?
population growth and boating skills etc. destroyed any lingering
hiding place for close relatives. When Homo sapiens, which evolved in SE
Asia, mixed with Neanderthals we got a hybrid that wiped out the
original Neanderthal but saved Homo sapiens with some minor issues and
favours - and it happened really fast. Let all the chimp "species"
freely mix with each other and they will in no time also "be alone".
Like humans, all dogs belong to the same species and with similar
Homogeneity. And like with humans there used to be more heterogenity
before. The very fact we are alone disproves in itself the widespread
out of Africa charlatanism. No bipedal omnivorous Homo species has ever
been able to hide every female many hundreds of thousands of years on a
continent. Only a certain type of islands can do the trick of repeated
evolutionary changes which are then pushed out and re-enter in
accordance with sea level (climate) changes. And the fact that Homos
before the upper paleolithic expansion, unlike e.g. rats, had a low
population density, made inbreeding and hybridization cause extinction.
Low in numbers and low in diversity, small groups interacted with each
other on a small and vanishing scale before a new brain setup, compare
the staggering IQ of Homo floresiensis compared to e.g. "Lucy" with
similar brain size, changed everything. Lucy was just one of many
African immigrant apes that originally came from SE Asia with minor
phenotype alterations during the trip and changing environment. And the
growth and sophistication of the Homo brain followed the old primate
formula which is best explained by Peter Klevius theory about repeated
And although, the much talked about human chin is really nothing but the remnant of hybridization and a retracting jaw (compare e.g. the human vestigial tail bone), afropologists like Chris Stringer use it as a morphological trait for defining humans. However, Europeans (e.g. the s.c. Cro-Magnon people) have the most prominent chin because they had interbred with Neanderthals equipped with a prominent protruding jaw. And with an IQ far above Neanderthals, Cro-Magnon's predecessors had developed eating habits that didn't need Neanderthal chewing gear. And of course, Cro-Magnon people genetically came from East Asia and therefore had a genetic preference for a skull more like e.g. the Liujiang man from eastern China where the archaic Homos were already "mongolized", i.e. having much less protruding lower face - not to mention the big Jinniushan woman from northern China that Peter Klevius used 1992 as connecting to the mongoloid Khoisan people in southern Africa of today.
Afropologists deny the existence of a better brain among Homo sapiens and therefore try, in vain, to intellectually "humanize" Neanderthals by wrongly pointing to cultural remains as created by Neanderthals when they are in fact produced by Homo sapiens and Neanderthal "hybrids". Afropologist Hublin is notorious in this respect.
Similarly, but more cautiously, as mentioned above, some years ago Chris Stringer came up with the ridiculous idea that the Neanderthals didn't manage to compete with the human brain because the big eyes of Neanderthals demanded such a big visual cortex that it left it with less room for "social IQ". As you dear reader, are well aware, Peter Klevius is a real expert on cognition and how the brain works (see e.g. EMAH). The "visual cortex" in born blinds is fully employed. The misleading name is inherited from the 19th century's classification of brain parts to perceived psychological etc. categories, i.e. the fanciful thought that nature reasons like humans. There's simply nothing stopping "social interaction" because of where in the cortex the processes occure. An image is an image no matter how it's produced.
Wednesday, September 09, 2020
Peter Klevius manual for building a human with AGI*
* Self-driving robots based on Peter Klevius theory below would not have to program their basic setup through living because they would utilize the totality of information on the web. And immediately after being connected they would start to individualize based on the additional experience each one gets from its particular moving origo.
The Verbal Fallacy of Language
Warning: Your research may be repossessed!
You commit scientific (and moral) fraud if you learn from Peter Klevius without referring/citing him as you normally do with other sources.
Peter Klevius is very serious when asking you to consider your level of bigotry and hypocrisy.
It's not very scientific, is it, to dismiss Peter Klevius as an "islamophobe" (i.e. Human Rights defender) and "a random blogger", especially when he most likely has a better brain and less bias* than you.
* Are you totally independent when it comes to economy, career etc., and do you lack religious, political etc. dogmas?
Peter Klevius 1994 EMAH* theory on consciousness and how the brain works.
* EMAH stands for the Even More Astonishing Hypothesis which alludes to Francis Crick's book The Astonishing Hypothesis. A copy of the first draft was immediately sent to Crick as a letter + a floppy disc with the same content in ASCI.
An other similarly stupid question: Did climate change affect the evolution of humans?
course, how else would they have come out from the SE Asian island
archepilago?! You don't need a super-computer to understand this, right.
Because of the PC "out-of-Africa" entrapment, "research" using it as a
platform, becomes ever more comical - especially when you combine the
pop-words 'out of Africa' and 'climate change' for getting research
grants to waste for absolute nosense.
third similarly stupid question is whether we still evolve - which is a
conflation between evolutionary speciation and hybridization.
species originally evolved in island isolations and has today stopped
evolving due to a global "island" isolation. Only sending women into
space for mmany hundreds of thousands of years could produce new
evolutionary steps. Or we could do it genetically in a laboratory in no
time at all. However, these options are outside the scope of
We don't even have to bother about species but rather on distinct evolutionary steps that only happens in longtime isolation. The history of (hetero)sexual* life on Earth is in essence the history of cracking continents** - of which SE Asian archepilago is the latest main remnant.
* Although most people understand that for natural reproduction a man's sperm has to be delivered into a woman, only Peter Klevius seems to understand that for this to happen there must be some sort of non cultural/non-romantic heterosexual attraction at work, which distinctively constitutes a basic natural difference between the sexes. This simple fact has been heavily distorted due to cultural/religious taboos
** Do realize that cracking continents also include the creation of lakes etc. evolutionary "sea islands" of which some turned into freshwater "islands". Adapting to these slow changes created much of the diversity we see in the fossil records long before tectonics had settled to the modern form, including the whole of pleistocene. Although the Panama isthmus closed (perhaps partially starting already in Miocene/Pliocene) and the Mediterranean emptied and filled during the same time, most of evolutionary interest happened in SE Asia due to sea level fluctuations - and perhaps some until now unknown tectonics etc.
Hybridization is all the time ongoing but can't create main evolutionary steps. So no, we won't evolve anymore unless someone manages to isolate a quite considerable anount of women for up to a million years or so. Scientists who obviously haven't read Peter Klevius,have been puzzled by the fact that they see two opposite trends in evolution, i.e. one that is extremely long term, and an other where evolution seemingly happens in no time. Applied to hominid evolution (and most other terrestials) this makes complete sense with Peter Klevius' SE Asian volatile island/mainland theory.
Out-of-Africa rests on these pillars of sand:
Modern DNA which doesn't prove anything about its origin. We don't have
ancient enough DNA from Africa, so it's pure and totally uncritical
guesswork to assume that older parts of modern Khoisan genome arose in
Africa. Their phenotype and fossil records tell exactly the opposite
2 A tiny pile of ambiguous fossils - just contrary to the ear deafening mantra about the "abundance of fossil evidence in Africa". We simply lack crucial transitional fossils showing the emergence of Homo or Homo sapiens in Africa. And we will never find them there! However, we found them in SE Asia - but afropologists seem not interested or try to hide them behing childish "rafting theories".
Out of Southeast Asia rests on these pillars of unbiased logic on the bedrock of hard data:
1 Ancient DNA and fossils (Denisovan), all the way between SE Asia and Siberia, point towards SE Asia - not Africa.
2 All transitional (not to be conflated with hybrids) Homo fossils ever found are in SE Asia (e.g. Homo floresiensis and Homo luzonensis) and southern China (Longlin Cave and the s.c. Red Deer Cave people at Maludong), which are dated to 17,830-11,500 BP. Like Homo floresiensis, the fossils exhibit a mix of archaic and modern features and represent a late survival of an archaic human species. Evidence shows large deer were cooked. Darren Curnoe:'The new find hints at the possibility a pre-modern species may have overlapped in time with modern humans on mainland East Asia. Why did they survive so late? And why only in tropical southern China?
Peter Klevius: The timing of the fossils may hint at them representing the last delivery from the SE Asian cradle of evolution via the landbridge that the last glacial maximum created. And the most recent fossil is close to the turbulent climate change around Younger Dryas.
The Maludong femur might represent a relic, tropically adapted, archaic population that survived relatively late in this biogeographically complex, highly diverse and largely isolated region.' Darren Curnoe admitted his work is 'controversial' and said some of his colleagues are 'simply unable to accept the possibility that archaic looking bones could be so young'. However, when Homo floresiensis was found, the same kind of comments were made because this species looks a lot like Australopithecus skeletons, like Lucy, that lived in Africa 3-4 million years ago.
Peter Klevius: However, Lucy had an ape skull and an ape brain whereas the features of the skull of Homo floresiensis literally forced the scientific community of afropologists, after long infighting - to accept it as a Homo.
Darren Curnoe: There were similar remains at Denisova Cave, although the bones are 30,000 to 40,000 years older than at Maludong. They've recovered evidence for multiple archaic species like the Neanderthals and Denisovans in the same cave layers as modern human dating to about 50,000 year ago. And in a slightly older unit in the cave they have found Neanderthal, Denisovan and possible Homo erectus bones, again together from a single layer. Within this context, and the Hobbit from Indonesia, our finds don't look so out of place after all. This is exciting because it shows the bones from Maludong, after 25 years of neglect, still have an incredible story to tell. There may have been a diversity of different kinds of human living until very recently in southwest China.'
But why only in tropical southwest China?
Darren Curnoe: 'Yunnan Province today has the greatest biodiversity of plants and animals in the whole of China. It is one of 20 floristic endemic centres as a result of its complex landscape of high mountains, deep valleys, rift lakes and large rivers. The region around Maludong is also on the northern edge of tropical Southeast Asia and many species found there today are very ancient indeed.'
Peter Klevius: No, the main reason is of course that it tropically connects to the "cradle of evolution" in the SE Asian volatile tropical archipelago.
Darren Curnoe: 'The Maludong femur might represent a relic, tropically adapted, archaic population that survived relatively late in this biogeographically complex, highly diverse and largely isolated region.'
The thigh bone resembles those found in older species of early human like Homo habilis and early Homo erectus.
3 Gibbon apes are the closest to where the human gait evolved from. The oldest gibbon fossil is 13 Mya and found in Asia. Most extant gibbons live in SE Asia and possess a variety that stands in sharp contrast to apes in Africa of which there are only really two types, i.e. gorillas and chimps.
4 SE Asian volatile tropical islands (shrinking and enlarging) and fluctuating mainland connections offered the perfect evolutionary laboratory for the human lineage as well as for many other mammals.
5 Although the s.c. Homo erectus appeared early in pleistocene, the estimated genomic time for the emergence of Homo sapiens is well in line with the onset of the later pleistocene climate oscillations.
6 The actual spread of Homo sapiens only makes sense as coming out of SE Asia - contrary to the strange proposal that Homo sapiens suddenly made it out of Africa and reached Australia in almost no time at all.
7 The first fully modern Homo sapiens were big skulled mongoloids, which explains the racial pattern the spread produced. The Liujiang skull is fully modern but possesses a tiny remnant of an occipital bun, which fact really underscores its old age despite its modern East Asian features. However, despite the fact that it can't be younger than 68,000 bp but most probably much older, doesn't hinder afropologists dismissing it because 'it looks too modern'.
8 Most fossils still called Homos do not necessarily belong to the Homo sapiens lineage at all. We simply don't know.
9 All s.c. Homo fossils in Africa are remnants of earlier out of SE Asia migrations. Some represent new species and some hybrid ones.
10 The out-of-Africa mantra has been so successful that many researchers automatically assume Africa as a starting point not only about Homos but also re. other primates and other mammals which clearly evolved outside Africa. Most of perceived African animals are immigrants from Eurasia. The concept of Afrotheria is more based on wishful guesswork than on facts.
Evolution of bipedalsim and a bigger brain
didn't lead to a bigger brain. The Sahelanthropus type of bipedal apes
had been aroung in Eurasia for at least 10 Myr before a larger brain
setup came around.
It was actually the repeated insular shrinking of the brain during pleistocene that caused it to perform better on narrowing islands. Only those who managed to keep the same intelligence while their head shrunk were able to survive. And when the islands again expanded, then the more open savannah like landscape favoured better bipedalism - and a route to the mainland and/or neighboring island(s).
All of this were in SE Asia mixed with mainland migration, back migration and hybridization, which produced additional evolutionary tweeks outside the range seen on the mainland. In other words, firstly there were the evolutionary steps that could only be achieved in longterm isolation, and secondly there were additional changes in the island-mainland interactions connected to the former.
As a consequence, according to Peter Klevius evolution formula*, you need to distinguish between evolution, i.e. island isolation that takes a long time, and hybridization, which happens in no time at all. The former brought something truly new, whereas the latter only contributed minor alterations. Heterosexual reproduction is per se already a form of basic hybridization. And due to environmental and/or other factors a species may split into "subspecies" but when they do encounter each other, they can still breed and produce fertile offspring. However, such a "subspecies" is something very different from speciasion in longlasting complee isolation which can produce radically new changes. And when these new species eventually get in contact with old relatives they may or may not be able to hybridisize.
* This formula also seems to fit most land based quadropeds from Pangea to today because the evolutionary corridors were always changing. However, after some 200 Ma the cradle of evolution laboratory in the SE Asian archipelage has been the main producer of new evolutionary lineages, quite contrary to the mainstream out of Africa noise most peope are blinded by.
Paleoanthropology is a branch of paleontology and anthropology which seeks to understand the early development of anatomically modern humans, a process known as hominization, through the reconstruction of evolutionary kinship lines within Hominidea working from biological and cultural evidence.
Fake anti-science nomenclature introduced by afropologists
According to Peter Klevius, Hominoidea is the only acceptable classification of today's confused and PC biased nomenclature about human evolution. All sub-groups in use today are not only useless but also misleading. And why confine Homos together with chimps? Moreover, the made up Hominidae, which has no scientific foundation or even likelihood, is the fancy word afropologists came up with to get rid of the SE Asian apes like e.g. gibbons. Afropologists cherry pick among extinct (both fossils and predicted ones based on nomenclatura) and extant "species". Calling chimps "our closest living relatives" (and often even leaving out 'living') is extremely misleading and confusing for most people. Moreover, every paleoanthropologist
Hominidae or hominid, according to afropologists, has two subfamilies, Ponginae (orangutans) and Homininae (African apes, including the human lineage).
The Hominini form a taxonomic tribe of the subfamily Homininae ("hominines") includes the extant genera Homo (humans) and Pan (chimpanzees and bonobos), but excludes the genus Gorilla (gorillas). Alternatively relating to, or being a member of a family (Hominidae) of erect, bipedal, primate mammals that includes recent humans together with extinct ancestral and related forms and in some recent classifications the gorilla, chimpanzee, and orangutan.
Bipedalism preceded other human like traits by at least 12 millions years.
guggenmosi is an extinct species of apes that lived 11.6 Mya in Germany
in an area that was a woodland with a seasonal climate. A male specimen
was estimated to 31 kg, and two females 17 and 19 kg. It is the first
Miocene ape with preserved long bones which can be used to reconstruct
the limb anatomy and thus the locomotion. It had adaptations for both
hanging in trees (suspensory behavior) and walking on two legs
(bipedalism), while present-day great apes lack this abililty. Danuvius
thus had a method of locomotion, called "extended limb clambering",
which is close to extant gibbons. Therefore one may hypothize there has
been extinct gibbons and/or last common ancestor with similar
capabilities. Gibbons are expert on walking directly along tree branches
as well as using arms for suspending themselves. Danuvius had a broad
chest and is the first recorded Miocene ape to have had the diaphragm
located in the lower chest cavity, as in Homo, indicating an extended
lower back and a greater number of functional lumbar vertebrae, meaning
the normal curvature of the human spine, moving the center of mass over
the hips and legs, which also strongly implies habitual bipedal
The robust finger and hypertrophied wrist and elbow bones indicate a strong grip and load bearing adaptations for the arms. The legs also show adaptations for load-bearing, especially at the hypertrophied knee joint. There was likely limited ankle loading, and the ankle would have had a hinge-like function, being most stable if positioned perpendicularly to the leg as opposed to in great apes. Moreover, Danuvius was likely able to achieve a strong grip with its big toes, unlike modern African great apes, which would have allowed it to grasp onto thinner trees. Adaptations for load bearing in both the arm and leg joints to this degree is unknown in any other primate.
The total anatomy of the limbs suggests Danuvius was capable of a seemingly unique manner of locomotion called "extended limb clambering", and likely walked along mildly inclined tree branches with its foot directly laid onto the branch, using its strong big toes for grasping. The strong knee joint would have provided balance while walking by counteracting torques, and the strong hands would have carried out a similar function during suspension or palm-walking. Extended limb clambering emphasizes knee extension and lordosis, as well as the suspensory mechanisms together constitute a precursor to obligate bipedalism seen in human ancestors.
10.8 Myr upper jawbone of Shivapithecus was found in Gujarat, India.
Sivapithecus was about 1.5 m in body length and the shape of its wrist
and general body proportions suggest that it spent a significant amount
of its time on the ground, as well as in trees. It had large canine
teeth, and heavy molars, suggesting a diet of relatively tough food,
such as seeds and savannah grasses.
ramnagarensis is an extinct genus of gibbons that lived about 13.8-12.5
Mya in India. Extant gibbons walk successfully on a flexible foot on
the ground and in the trees. Early humans could have walked successfully
on a 'flexible' flat foot, similar to modern day gibbons. The arched
'rigid' foot of modern humans – thought to have appeared approximately
1.8 million years ago – is best adapted for upright walking, but early
humans once had 'flexible' feet and could have walked on the ground
is an ape which inhabited northern Hungary 10 Mya, and which fossilized
pelvis shows it didn’t knuckle-walk like chimps or gorillas. It moved
among branches holding its body upright, and unlike modern great apes,
it had a flexible lumbar, which gave it the ability to stand upright
like humans and walk efficiently on two legs. Rudapithecus looked more
like humans, whose long, flexible lower backs make it easy to stand
upright. Carol Ward: “If that's what our ancestors were like, then that
transition to walking on two feet wasn't really that big a deal. We just
specialized at doing it. We didn't have to have a fundamental change in
how we moved. Everybody has seen the drawing of the knuckle-walker that
is slowly standing upright. That's what we always thought happened
because all we had to look at was modern animals. But now, looking at
the fossil record, we realize we have the wrong picture of what the
ancestral animals would have been like. And this is a really big piece
of the puzzle.“
6 Myr Trachilos footprints from Crete show clearly bipedal-like
characteristics. However, when Gierliński and his team tried to publish
the study, they received harsh criticism due to the findings going
against the theory of Homos and other bipedals evolving in Africa.
Even though a bin may contain a lot of information - it's not its origin!
of only keeping digging in the African bin, Peter Klevius suggests
connecting the real Homo dots, wherever they pop up in the fossil
record, and then connect them not to Africa, but to a much more likely
place of origin in SE Asian tropical and volatile archipelago.
And in fact, we already have enough Homo fossils and artifacts to that aim - only problem they're all dismissed because they don't follow the out-of-Africa catechism.
Also, you need to understand that Homo erectus has nothing to do with Homo sapiens - just look at the skull and browridge, and recall Chris Stringer's chin!
Here are some fossils in SE Asia and China which do the trick - and they are all within the timeline of modern humans, yet they all exhibit old traits that fit
a SE Asian evolutionary patter:
1. Homo floresiensis shows that processes unknown to Africa were rooted on the "wrong side" of the Wallacea line. This means that ape to Homo transition must have happened all over the SE Asian archipelago. Afropologists have tried to "explain" it as insular drarfing of Homo erectus which somehow (sic) rafted to Flores 1-2 Mya. This is however absolutely nonsensical when taking into account the skeletal features of Homo floresiensis. Peter Klevius doubts there's a single afropologist who'd dare to risk their reputation by publicly stating that Homo floresiensis peculiar limbs etc. skeletal characteristics could be convincingly seen as coming from Homo erectus - aspecially considering the total lack of concensus about how to evem define the latter.
2. Homo luzonensis, on the other hand, had mainland access, and probably belonged to a branch that also included Homo sapiens.
3 And the perhaps most important one (because it showed up on mainland) hasn't even been rewarded a name by the "scientific community" even though it's atreasurethrow of information with almost complete cranial and post-cranial data.
At the time of cooling, mainland routes appeared from the receding sea and became grassy savannah-like "training corridors" for stuttering tree-climbing bipeds - and inroads for earler bipeds who then sooner or later got stuck at the next warming period.
We evolved from climbing apes in SE Asia and then learnt to walk and run on now drowned streches of savannah, as bipedal apes had already done for millions of years.
Do note how the increase in fluctuations of later Pleistocene coincide with the emergence of Homo sapiens.
Late pliocene and the whole of pleistocene offered a variable cooling trend that accelerated in the latter part of pleistocene.
Peter Klevius predicts you'll never see fossils like H. floresiensis in Africa!
Multiple dwarfing events made our brain setup possible. What took some time was to transfer this arboreal brain on top of true bipedalism.
During Pleistocene, sea level oscillations became much more frequent, and during its last 600 Kyr we got the pattern of interglacials we still live in.
Dmanisi people would have easily outperformed Homo floresiensis when it comes to walking/running. However, when it comes to truly human characteristics of the brain the latter showed the way.
If we put aside fancy and childish "rafting theories"* then Homo floresiensis on the "wrong side" of the Wallace line, represents a truly independent line of Homo evolution.
* The most ridiculous part of OOA is how difficult it is to explain why omnivorous bipedals with the best brain ever on the planet, had such enourmous problem stepping out of Africa through a 200 km wide landbridge, even including different internal biospheres as if two different shorelines wouldn't be enough for substantiation. Moreover, no one disputes that humans have always followed shorelines with success.
All forms of apes and Homos ultimately came from SE Asia - and ended up as "puzzling" fossils in Africa, and lived side by side with other species - to the delight of religious creationists Africa therefore lacks transitional forms.
is a 500,000 bp "hashtag" found in SE Asia without anyone paying any
particular attention. However, when a similar but only 70,000 bp
"hashtag" was found in Africa it was celebrated as evidence of the
"African cradle of evolution".
the time that H. heidelbergensis allegedly lived, closely related Homo
populations periodically split up, reorganized and bred with outsiders,
without necessarily operating as distinct biological species. Mating
among different H. sapiens groups started some 500 Kya eventually
producing modern humans as we see today.
Humans have a high and rounded brain case, with a small brow, a chin on the lower jaw and a slimmer bone structure, says Stringer. Neanderthals, by comparison, have a longer, lower skull, with a larger nose, brow and no chin.
"Humans have a clearly distinct skeletal shape from Neanderthals," says Stringer. "These differences suggest that there was a separate evolution for hundreds of thousands of years."
On the other hand, older modern human remains have a bigger brow, bulkier teeth and more robust skeletons. And the closer in age the remains are to the mystery ancestor, the difference in features is less pronounced.
After the two species evolved from a common ancestor, they became unmistakably separate in both appearance and DNA. But at the same time, before Neanderthals went extinct 40,000 years ago, they did many of the same things as humans. They hunted the same large game, had burial rituals, used similar tools and even interbred.
Homo floresiensis brain evolution perfectly fits the timescale of Homo sapiens.
Some reflections about extant gibbon apes
gibbon can be up to 150 cm, and the face is mostly hairless, except for
a thin mustache. It inhabits the forest remnants of Sumatra Island and
the Malay Peninsula, and is widely distributed from lowland forest to
mountain forest—even rainforest—and can be found at altitudes up to 3800
m. It lives in groups of only four individuals on average, consisting
of a monogamous mating pair and offspring, and sometimes also a subadult
who usually leaves after attaining the age of 6–8 years.
The siamang rests for more than half of its waking period, followed by feeding, moving, foraging, and social activities, like grooming others or to play. Grooming is one of the most important social interactions among family members. Grooming takes place between adults earlier in the day; the adults groom the juveniles later in the day. Adult males are the most involved in grooming. Siamangs are a very social species of primates and exhibit a variety of tactile and visual gestures, along with actions and facial expressions to communicate and increase social bonds within their family group.
Grooming frequency between males and females has been found to correlate to copulation frequency, as well as bouts of aggression. Pairs copulate over four to five months at intervals of two to three years. The peak of their reproductive activity is when fruit is most abundant. Dorsoventral copulation is the most common type in siamangs, where the female is squatting and the male hangs by his arms and grips the female with his legs
Mated pairs produce loud, well-patterned calling bouts, which are referred to as duetting. These calls advertise the presence and status of a mated pair. Newly formed pairs spend more time singing than an established pair. Advertising the presence of a strong bond is advantageous in territorial defense. Siamang duetting differs from other species because it has a particularly complex vocal structure. Four distinct classes of vocalizations have been documented: booms, barks, ululating screams, and bitonal screams. Females typically produce long barks and males generally produce bitonal screams, but both sexes have been known to produce all four classes of vocalizations.
How the northern* Homo sapiens "mongolized" and "intellectualized" Homo sapiens globally
note that Peter Klevius grey "bastard belt" met and mixed with pygmy
and khoisan people quite recently (the s.c. Bantu expansion), hence
shaping the racial and genomic pattern in Africa.
Although Homo sapiens with a modern* brain setup evolved in island SE Asia, its volume was extremely small (compare Homo floresiensis). However, after mainland connection it moved all over the place and ended up in the cold but fat and protein rich north where it mixed with big skulled and cold adapted "mongoloid" relatives. The combination of the new brain setup and huge skulls where to fill it, was the reason behind the intellectual "explosion" Svante Pääbo and Peter Klevius have seen (although Pääbo in 2022 seems to cowardly now hiding behind the "rachet effect"*) as evident, yet the rest seem to dodge. However, we do know that a 55,000 bp skull found in Mideast was modern but pygmy size. We also know that the oldest modern "Africans" were small skulled s.c. negroid pygmies and mongoloid Khoisan people. So the pattern seems to be that "recent out of Asia" Homo sapiens had already occupied much land before the big skulled (i.e. near average of today's humans) from the north flooded the world. The consequence of the following mix is the phenotypical race pattern we see in modern times. The fact that the oldest modern genes in Africa belong to a mongoloid, i.e. cold adapted phenotype, may, in accordance with Peter Klevius theory, easily be explained as negritos being mongolized without much size increase, and some of them (the smarthest small brained) ending up in Africa where there alredy were African "negritos" i.e. s.c. pygmies. And the reason Khoisan harbour older genes is simply because they got the archaic genes of the people who carried the new brain setup, which fact also explains why Khoisan people managed to survive for quite some time in big parts of Africa while the pygmies, which still lacked the updated brain were more restricted to the tropics. The African negroid phenotype is a recent phenomenon - on pair with white skinned Caucasians - and started with modern Eurasians moving in from the north. And later on when Eurasian cattle and farming people in a larger scale moved down via Mideast around Yamnaya time, they also mixed with pygmies and Khoisan, and perhaps some archaics, hence creating the stock of the s.c. Bantu expansion which constitutes the most common phenotype variety, i.e. some sort of now "average African" or "black" African.
* The Primate brain evolved in steps in the volatile SE Asian archepilago. So we are just the last step. However, if we shouldn't have spread so successfully, an even better brain setup would have emerge during the next iceage. And we can't be sure whether the last glacial maximum also contributed to a better brain. Did the Deer Cave people with their small bodies but some 1350 cm2 brain volume give us an additional intelligence kick?
Btw, Peter Klevius uses to call himself belonging to the racial "bastard belt" that is often called "Caucasian" just as the African "bastard belt" is called "negroid". Luckily, Peter Klevius' theory doesn't give his own "bastardness" any importance. The facts instead point to pygmy like SE Asians and mongoloized (cold adapted) Eurasians. However, if Peter Klevius' theory had pointed to his own "race", then he wouldn't only have been neglected but also hated as a "white supremacist racist", right.
Peter Klevius warning to young students interested in anthropology and evolution. Keep away from afropologists, or you inevitably end up embarrassing yourself in the "out-of-Africa" charlatanism!
Peter Klevius wrote 1992 (based on his general evolution theory published 1981):
In Resursbegär* (Demand for Resources) Peter Klevius (1992:28, ISBN 9173288411) wrote under the chapter Human Evolution:
* Peter Klevius most advanced research and scientific investigations have all happened outside academia and/or paid work - meaning Peter Klevius was excuded from internal information. In other words, Peter Klevius has since his teens gathered info from alternative sources such as books and magazines from libraries etc.. This might deceive someone to believe that the quality of Peter Klevius work then must have suffered. However, quite the contrary. Every published paper plus correspondence since 1979 is there to be seen by anyone. 1990-1992 while the book was written (and checked and approved by Wittgenstein's successor at Cambridge, G. H. von Wright, Peter Klevius not only subscribed to the expensive Nature magazine, but also heavily utilized other scienticfic magazines he could read for free in specialized magazine shops and libraries - i.e. the "free web" before internet. 1992 Peter Klevius father-in-law said: 'Ok, you're proud of the book now but after 20 years you gonna laugh at what you wrote.' And Peter Klevius almost believed him. However, now 30 years later the text seems more useful than ever.
'Already during the Paleocene 60 million. years ago, some primates, among them the still-living tarsier, had evolved. From relatives of these, it is believed that the anthropoids who lived in Africa and southeast Asia 25-38 million years ago, originated. These would eventually give rise to humans as well as apes. The genus Homo presents itself for the first time more than 2 million years ago as Homo habilis (the handy one) who could, among other things, build huts and use fire. The brain size of 700-800 cm3, begins to distinguish her more markedly from the apes and the first signs of the so-called. Broca's speech center can be discerned.
Pleistocenum, i.e. the ice age interrupted by interglacials, ranged from about 2 million years ago until the Holocene which includes the current interglacial that began about 10,000 years ago at the time of the first plant and animal domestication. The previous interglacial occurred some 120,000 years ago and there has been speculation as to why animal and plant domestication didn't take off already back then.
In northern China, an almost complete skeleton was found in 1984 who died about 280,000 years ago. The find was remarkable in that its large cranium capacity, 1,400 cm3 was not expected to occur among Homo erectus that lived during the Middle Pleistocene and that the cranium is large even if classified as Homo sapiens. Anatomically completely modern human has an average brain volume of about 1,400 cm3 and is estimated to have appeared between 50-100,000 years ago and therefore we can state that human's large brain volume with a reassuring margin preceded the first civilizations and that she for perhaps 2 million years would have been capable of building huts and fireplaces as well as using language.
It is against this background that we should consider the cultural change that occurred as recently as 6,000-10,000 years ago and which today at an accelerating pace is transforming our living space and ourselves. This means that modern human, biologically exactly like ourselves and with the same brain volume, has for most of its existence lived in more or less static social systems born out of its own evolution and interrupted only by continuously or sporadically occurring non-URB-related ecological adjustments. A world where expanded demands for resources and the building of spacecraft previously could not take root. A world where most things had their given place through the weight and expediency of tradition. A world where creativity and invention probably rarely occurred.
'Civilization' means 'ordered society' but rests on the dynamics of expanded demands for resources, thereby producing creativity and investment that constitute anomalies against this order (P. Klevius 1992).
There are several delicate cultural-anthropological prejudices which have got a strong grip on the public. One is the view about human aggression as an irresistable negative biological force which has to be released. To argue this while simultaneously proposing channelled aggressivity for the purpose of mitigating its effect, in fact, means that one culturally creates and stimulates patterns of negative behavior. Same species violence is, like expanded demand for resources, a learned behavior. The organized form of violence, i.e. war, seems not to be older than expanded demands for resources. They are likely intimately connected.
So called civilized societies can be described as dynamic, hence contrasting against the more static appearance of the economic setting (lack of investment) of e.g. hunter-gatherers.
A re-classification of human societies departng from C. Levi-Strauss idea about "warm" and "cold" societies (Klevius 1992):
A Without 'extended demands for resources' (EDFR).
B Affected by EDFR but still retaining a simplistic, "primitive" way of life.
C Civilized with EDFR
These categories are, of course, only conceptual. Applied to a conventional classification the following pattern appears:
1 The primitive stage when all were hunter/gatherers (A, according to EDFR classification).
2 Nomads (A, B, C).
3 Farmers (B, C).
4 Civilized (C).
As a consequence EDFR is here used as a concept tied to civilization (and its preliminary stages) The above also suggests a critique against our conventional conception of a simplistic connection between intelligence and performance as exemplified by C. Popper's naive scenario of a World 1-3 transition of human cultural development (P. Klevius 1992).
(Implications of this view can be seen in Peter Klevius theory of mind EMAH, The Even More Astonishing Hypothesis, which deals with the mind/body problem and the closing gap between not only humans and other living things but also humans and machines - and the world as a whole).
Here's the last part of the chapter Khoi, San and Bantu (in Demand for Resources, Klevius 1992):
concept of San includes the three groups ! King! Xu and G!wi, all of
whom have their own closely related but independent languages. Of these
groups, it is G!wi that can be assumed to be closest to the classical
collector/hunter society, although really no groups today are found in
the cultural patterns that still existed in the 50-60s. An appreciation
of the traditional features of the cultural pattern of San (conventional
group 1, URB group A) includes the absence of domestication, loose
cohesion, unfixed, non-hierarchical decision-making order, and virtually
non-existent material status (exceptions include, for example, hunting
weapons and prey before the inevitable distribution).
Patricia Draper in the 1960s "The Harvard !Kung Bushmen Study Project" compared different sex roles between classic hunter-gatherers and !Kung societies connected to the surrounding Bantu societies. She found that "that !Kung society may be the least sexist of any we have experienced" and that this is evident in "women's subsistence contribution and the control women retain over the food they have gathered, the lack of rigidity in sex-typing of many adult activities including domestic chores and aspects of child socialization; the cultural sanction against physical expression of aggression; the smaller group size; and the nature of the settlement pattern." She furthemore notes that "authoritarian behavior is avoided by adults of both sexes." These characteristics were all hampered in the sedentary groups.
A pioneer in demonstrating how little work San gathers-hunters put into food sourcing and housing was Richard Lee, who in 1963 studied the among anthropologists now well-known Dobe Base Camp 12. He lived with them, methodically noting everything he saw, measuring and weighing both food and people, taking time on everything they did and the result of his, and later also the work of others can be summed up in the words of Marshal Sahlin: "1f the affluent society is one where all the people's material wants are easily satisfied this is the first affluent society." He continues: "The human condi?tion must keep man the prisoner at hard labor of a perpetual disparity between his unlimited wants and his insufficient means... " and "there is (instead) a road to affluence, departing from premises... that human wants are few, and technical means unchanging but on the whole adequate."
In the mid-1970s, Diane Gelburd, among others, found that the bushmen's lives in Dobe had changed character since Richard Lee's field studies. The huts were built of clay instead of grass and stood further apart. Some got doors as they filled with personal belongings. Fences were built for the animals that they have now acquired. The same was true of the bone remains, which previously consisted only of remains from wild animals, but in 1976 to 80 consisted of bone remains from domesticated animals.
At the same time, changes took place in internal social relations. The distribution of assets decreased and the forms of e.g. marriage were complicated due to new, previously unknown problems related to property issues.
"What explains the shattering of this society"? asks John Yellen from The National Science Foundation anthropology program. He continues: "It hasn't been a direct force, a war, the ravages of disease..." and answers: "1t is the internal conflicts, the tensions, the inconsistencies, the impossibility of reconciling such different views of the world."
The farming and cattle-herding Bantu peoples invaded the traditional lands of the Khoisan peoples which also created the cattle-herding Khoi. However, the Khoi and San have lived for several thousands of years side by side without the gathering-hunting San becoming cattle keepers.
So there's something more needed to crack the spine of a typical San society. Is it about a critical point for livelihood/population size? Is there a lower limit to the number of individuals in a functioning hunter-gatherer culture? At what stage exactly is the social immune system versus expanded demands for resource broken down? Whether there is a critical point or whether it is a question of a slowly increasing tension that gradually causes one stronghold after another to give in, we see here the emergence of the rift between cultural forms where the expanding demands for resources has taken root with varying success (P. Klevius 1992).'
Surely, there's no way back. Creativity and innovations, i.e. technology, will determine our "civilized" future.