Peter Klevius simple evolution tutorial for simple minds - e.g. ignorant anthropology professors etc.
Peter Klevius evolution formula, first published as an article 1981
and as a book 1992 (ISBN 9173288411) and on the web 2004, 2008, 20010,
2012. Do note
that those who didn''t hybridize resulted in the fossile diversity that
has puzzled som amny an anthropologist. Also consider that Peter Klevius
general evolution formula (first published 1981) covers everything
including the fractured oceans(s) that led to diversity after the
cambrian explosion and extinction.
Peter Klevius annoying habit of repeating Peter Klevius, and his self
citations, isn't a neural defect but has to be evaluated against the
very thick wall* between him and Harvard, Stanford etc., which makes his
existence almost invisible. Not to mention the enormous moat*
concisting of "spiritualists", creationalists, religionists, alienists,
conspirationalists etc.
*
'Wall' and 'moat' come from old Swedish words still in use today, i.e.
'vall' and 'mot'. Don't trust fake etymology - trust Peter Klevius who
would be extremely embarrassed if he were proven wrong.
Peter Klevius evolution formula
(published 1981, 1992): Isolation-fluctuation* and hybridization.
There's no difference between the evolution of Universe and the Sun and
its surrounding, or the evolution of "life". We lack a coherent
definition of "life" and will never get one. However, comfort yourself
with Peter Klevius 'existence-centrism' and UN's negative Universal
Human Rights.
* No dude, there's no "extinction"
other than the one you use practically in Wittgenstein's language game.
If the dinosaurs haven't disappeared then why would the hominies.
Peter
Klevius' appeal for the understanding of the disability concisting of
how a super high IQ combined with a flawless hormone/dopamine/serotonine
balance* makes him the "extremely normal" whom no one really likes -
except for those who know him 100% longterm and have survived their
annoyance of own shortcomings mirrored in his disability. So Peter
Klevius "bragging" about himself is easily outweighed by his disability -
if this fact may comfort you. After all, intelligencephobia is so PC
that the only intelligence that is possible, i.e. the individual one, is
denied while the oxymoron "group intelligence" is hailed. Peter Klevius
+ 9 half idiots would have an average IQ as a group - so what?!
* If you get annoyed while reading
this, then ask yourself if you would be equally annoyed when reading
about the qualities of a sports star, an actor/actress, a singer etc.
See my point?
However, unlike you, Peter Klevius
also suffers from the ethical dilemma of sitting silent and have peace
while clearly understanding he has something to offer. And pretending to
be "humble" would only diffuse him into the realm of easily dismissed
(from whatever direction at whatever time and subject) opinionaters.
Peter Klevius on cosmology, first in an article (1981) and later unchanged in Demand for Resources (1992:23, ISBN 9173288411):
'The basis of existence is motion/change, and causality constitutes a
complex of evolution and devolution. Evolution may be seen as the
consequence of causality's variables in time where complexity in
existing structures are regenerated. This stands in opposition to
thermodynamics which theoretically leads to maximal entropy (i.e.
equilibrium) where time/change ultimately would end. Someone might then
say that the products of evolution are just temporary components in
causality's road towards uniformity.'
(Klevius 1992:23). An example of evolution and devolution is a star cycle ending in a super nova - incl. everything in it.
A lump in a nebula is the "island" on which a star is born.
1. Peter Klevius concept 'existence-centrism' (1992) is the only way to
understand and handle the traps for logic that language creates.
Existence-centrism is the immutable truth that we can't sidestep. All
your (or humankind's) collected experience at every single moment limits
what you can say. And as a consequence, metaphysical statements are
either impossible or just "meta-metaphysical".
2. The formation of structure not only rests on previous structure but is the very evidence for it.
The evolution of life may be described as based on strong fluctuations (isolation) and weak fluctuations (hybridization).
Speciation needs isolation. After migration hybridization
stops further speciation and explains fossil diversity
as well as existing phenotypes.
Human evolution in retrospective is a repeated chain of
speciation and hybridization.
Different types of life depend on different types of isolation and fluctuation.
Early hominines (before more advanced use of tools) were not specialized
to really anything except bi-pedalism, but could do a little and eat a
little of almost everything. This made them moving around in a way that
excludes isolation other than on islands.
Therefore "part time islands" constitute the best evolutionary labs.
And SE Asia is the perfect cradle which has had a longterm and varied
hiatory of island/mainland fluctuations incl. between islands.
Peter Klevius wrote:
The Red Deer Cave people add more evidence for Klevius’ ape/homo hybridization theory
The irrefutable art track in Northern Eurasia (see map below) has no
contemporary equivalent in other parts of the world. Based on what we
know now it had no fore bearers whatsoever in any period of time.
Moreover, it seems that there was even a decline before "civilizations"
started tens of thousands of years later! Yet Klevius seems to be the
only one addressing this most interesting (besides genetics) fact!
According to Klevius (and no one else so far) the new and more efficient
brain evolved in a jungle environment (SE Asia?) and spread up until
meeting with big headed Neanderthals hence creating the modern human who
later spread and dissolved with archaic homos. In this process Homo
erectus was most probably involved as well.
Updated info about the origin of Klevius' theory
Keep in mind that mainland SE Asia possibly harbored physically truly
modern humans already before the time range (12,000/18,000 ybp - 98,000
ybp) of the Homo floresiensis remains in the Flores cave.
Liujiang, SE China (est. 100,000-140,000ybp)
If this Liujiang skull had been found in Africa or Mideast Wikipedia and
other media would be overfilled. But this is all you get now (summer
2015 update) from Wikipedia about this extremely important skull:
The Liujiang skull probably came from sediment dating to 111 000 to 139
000 which would mean it's older than the oldest Homo floresiensis
remains on Flores. Nothing even remotely close to this modern skull has
ever been found in Africa, Mideast or Europe this early. In other words,
we have the extremely archaic looking Red Deer Cave people 100,000
years
after this extremely modern looking Liujiang population at
approximately the same region. Even the least probable estimate of
70,000 bp would make Liujiang more modern looking than anything else.
Also compare Lake Mungo remains in Australia with an mtDNA that differs
completely from ours (incl. Australian Aborigines). Sadly the remains
have been kept out of further research (which fact came handy for those who want to dismiss it) because of stupid*
"Aboriginal"(?!) greed (for the purpose of making certain people more
"special" than others for no good reason at all (also compare the
ridiculous Kennewick man controversy). Does it need to be said that the
Mungo remains are as far from Australian Aborigines in appearance as you
can imagine. However, according to Alan Thorne, 'Mungo could not have
come from Africa as, just like Aboriginal Australians don't look like
anybody from Africa, Mungo Man's skeleton doesn't look like anybody from
Africa either. LM3 skeleton was of a gracile individual, estimated
stature of 196 cm, which all sharply contrast with the morphology of
modern "indigenous" Australians. Compared to the older Liujiang skull
Mungo man had a much smaller brain.
* There's no way anyone can state who
was "first" in Australia - and even if there was, then there's still no
way of making any meaningful connection to now living people.
Peter Klevius 1992-2010: From tropical SE-Asia to cold and protein/fat rich North Eurasia to global humans. In Demand for Resources (1992
ISBN 9173288411) Klevius not only set the foundation of the so far best
theory on consciousness and how the brain works (see e.g. the "stone" example pp 31-33, or the 1994 EMAH paper that was sent to Francis Crick ), but also connected the
big brained 280,000 bp Jinniushan in northern China with the mongoloid
features of the oldest Africans - and asked: Why didn't Jinniushan
people go to the Moon, after all, they had several iceages time to do
so with a brain size exceeding modern humans. In 2004, after the
discovery of Homo floresiensis Klevius immediately told the world that
here was the "missing brain link". When six years later Denisovan was
found, Klevius theory was proven correct in everything except lesser details.
Most "mysteries" in genetics disappear
by abandoning OOA and changing direction of HSS evolution. Only South
East Asia offered a combination of tropical island/mainland fluctuations
needed to put pressure on size reduction paired with evolutionary
isolation in an environment where only those survived who managed to
shrink their heads while keeping the same intelligence as their mainland
kins with some double the sized brain. Homo floresiensis is evidence
that such has happened there.
Denisovan is an extinct species of human in the genus Homo. In March
2010, scientists announced the discovery of a finger bone fragment of a
juvenile female who lived about 41,000 years ago, found in the remote
Denisova Cave in the Altai Mountains in Siberia, a cave which has also
been inhabited by Neanderthals and modern humans. Two teeth and a toe
bone belonging to different members of the same population have since
been reported.
Analysis of the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of the Denisovan finger bone
showed it to be genetically distinct from the mtDNAs of Neanderthals and
modern humans. Subsequent study of the nuclear genome from this
specimen suggests that this group shares a common origin with
Neanderthals, that they ranged from Siberia to Southeast Asia, and that
they lived among and interbred with the ancestors of some present-day
modern humans, with about 3% to 5% of the DNA of Melanesians and
Aboriginal Australians deriving from Denisovans. DNA discovered in Spain
suggests that Denisovans at some point resided in Western Europe, where
Neanderthals were thought to be the only inhabitants. A comparison with
the genome of a Neanderthal from the same cave revealed significant
local interbreeding, with local Neanderthal DNA representing 17% of the
Denisovan genome, while evidence was also detected of interbreeding with
an as yet unidentified ancient human lineage. Similar analysis of a toe
bone discovered in 2011 is underway, while analysis of DNA from two
teeth found in layers different from the finger bone revealed an
unexpected degree of mtDNA divergence among Denisovans. In 2013,
mitochondrial DNA from a 400,000-year-old hominin femur bone from Spain,
which had been seen as either Neanderthal or Homo heidelbergensis, was
found to be closer to Denisovan mtDNA than to Neanderthal mtDNA.
Little is known of the precise anatomical features of the Denisovans,
since the only physical remains discovered thus far are the finger bone,
two teeth from which genetic material has been gathered and a toe bone.
The single finger bone is unusually broad and robust, well outside the
variation seen in modern people. Surprisingly, it belonged to a female,
indicating that the Denisovans were extremely robust, perhaps similar in
build to the Neanderthals. The tooth that has been characterized shares
no derived morphological features with Neanderthal or modern humans. An
initial morphological characterization of the toe bone led to the
suggestion that it may have belonged to a Neanderthal-Denisovan hybrid
individual, although a critic suggested that the morphology was
inconclusive. This toe bone's DNA was analyzed by Pääbo. After looking
at the full genome, Pääbo and others confirmed that humans produced
hybrids with Denisovans.
Some older finds may or may not belong to the Denisovan line. These
includes the skulls from Dali and Maba, and a number of more fragmentary
remains from Asia. Asia is not well mapped with regard to human
evolution, and the above finds may represent a group of "Asian
Neanderthals".
Jinniushan and Floresiensis - the keys to Denisovan and the truly modern humans
Jinniushan had a bigger brain than anything in contemporary Africa
In
Demand for Resources (1992:28 ISBN 9173288411) in a chapter
about human evolution, Peter Klevius used only one example, the
remarkable Jinniushan skeleton/cranium:
In northern China near North Korean
border an almost complete skeleton of a young man who died 280,000
years ago. The skeleton was remarkable because its big cranial volume
(1,400cc) was not expected in Homo erectus territory at this early time
and even if classified as Homo sapiens it was still big. The
anatomically completely modern human brain volume is 1,400 cc and
appeared between 50-100,000 years ago. One may therefore conclude that
big brain volume by far predated more sophisticated human behavior
(Klevius 1992:28).
Today, when many believe the skeleton is female, the brain size becomes even more remarkable.
Since 1991 when Klevius wrote his book much new information has been
produced. However, it seems that the Jinniushan archaic Homo sapiens
still constitutes the most spectacular anomaly (together with Homo
floresiensis) in anthropology. So why did Klevius pick Jinniushan
instead of one of the more fashionable human remains? After all, Klevius
was a big fan of Rchard Leakey (he even interviewed him in a lengthy
program for the Finnish YLE broadcasting company) and there was a lot of
exciting bones appearing from the Rift Valley.
In the 1980s Klevius paid special attention to Australian aborigines and
African "bushmen" and noted that the latter were mongoloid in
appearance (even more so considering that todays Khoe-San/Khoisan are
heavily mixed with Bantu speakers). But mongoloid features are due to
cold adaptation in the north and therefore the "bushmen" had to be
related to Eurasia. Klevius soon realized that the Khoisan speakers had
moved to the southern Africa quite recently as a consequence of the so
called Bantu expansion. More studies indicated that the "bushmen" had
previously populated most of east Africa up to the Red Sea and beyond.
So the next step for Klevius was to search for early big skulled human
remains in the mongoloid northern part of Eurasia. And that search
really paid off.
This happened more than 20 years before the discovery of the Denisova bracelet and the human relative Denisovan in Altai.
Klevius book Demand for Resources (1992) in which these thoughts about
mongoloid traits were published also predates Floresiensis with more
than a decade.
Both fossils show clear cold adaptation (mongoloid) traits. However,
Jinniushan (right) is older and has a bigger cranial capacity although
it's female.
Peter Brown (world famous for discovering/defending Floresiensis in 2004
and who had big trouble getting his PhD accepted because of a biased
supervisor/institution): What makes Dali, as well as Jinniushan (Lu,
1989; Wu, 1988a), particularly important is that both of their facial
skeletons are reasonably complete. This is an unusual situation in China
as the only other middle Pleistocene hominids to have faces in China
are the Yunxian Homo erectus (Li and Etler, 1992), which are both very
distorted. Originating in the pioneering research of Weidenreich (1939a,
1939b, 1943) at Zhoukoudian, there has been strong support by Chinese
Palaeoanthropologists for evolutionary continuity between Chinese H.
erectus and modern humans in China. It has been argued that this is most
clearly expressed in the architecture of the facial skeleton (Wolpoff
et al., 1984). East Asian traits have been argued to include lack of
anterior facial projection, angulation in the zygomatic process of the
maxilla and anterior orientation of the frontal process, pronounced
frontal orientation of the malar faces, and facial flatness. While some
of these traits may occur at high frequency in modern East Asians (cf
Lahr, 1996) they are not present in late Pleistocene East Asians, for
instance Upper Cave 101 and Liujiang (Brown, 1999), or more apparent in
Dali and Jinniushan than archaic H. sapiens from Africa or Europe.
Recently there has been a tendency to link a group of Chinese hominin
fossils, including Dali, Maba, Xujiayao, and Jinniushan, previously
considered by some researchers to be "archaic Homo sapiens", with the
Denisovians (Reich et al. 2010; Martinón-Torres et al. 2011)
(http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v468/n7327/full/nature09710.html).
However, apart from a few teeth, the Denisovians are only known from
palaeo DNA. There is also a great deal of anatomical variation in the
Chinese "archaic Homo sapiens" group. It will be interesting to see how
this plays out over the next decade, or so.
Klevius: It turns the conventional anthropological map on its head!
.
