Is the islamofascist Saudi dictator "prince" Mohammad bin Salman the world's most dangerous man?

Is the islamofascist Saudi dictator "prince" Mohammad bin Salman the world's most dangerous man?
Is the islamofascist Saudi dictator "prince" Mohammad bin Salman the world's most dangerous man?

The Viking phenomenon started with bilingual Finns raiding/trading sex slaves to Abbasid (ca 750)

The islamofascist Saudi dictator family spreading its islamist hate and losses while FEEding Lnd

The islamofascist Saudi dictator family spreading its islamist hate and losses while FEEding Lnd
The islamofascist Saudi dictator family spreading its islamist hate and losses over you

How an organization of islamic crimes (OIC) violates Human Rights

Human Rights is diversity - sharia is the opposite

The evil of Sharia islam is what makes it incompatible with Negative Human Rights (i.e. why islamic OIC violates Human Rights by replacing them with Sharia, hence excluding women and non-muslims from equality). The evil of islam and its origin may be easier to grasp with historical examples, e.g. the Origin of Vikings.

It's racism and sexism even if proposed by a "god"! Klevius altruistic virtual volunteering for the world community in defense of Universal Human Rights . Yes, I know, it's unfair. Klevius vs islam, i.e. Universal Human Rights vs Sharia (OIC) racism/sexism! Of course Klevius will win. The question is just how long we should allow the dying beast to make people suffer. (Negative) Human Rights is not a ”Western” invention! It’s where you end up when you abandon racism and sexism, idiot! After you have abandoned islam! Your confused islamophilia and ignorance about Human Rights make YOU an accomplice to islam's crimes! Whereas Human Rights work as egalitarian and universal traffic rules (no matter who you are or what you drive you have the same rights as everyone else) islam/Sharia differs between muslim men and the rest (women and "infidels")!

Ask yourself, why can't racist islam (OIC) accept Human Rights? The answer reveals the difference between totalitarianism and freedom. And even if everyone converted to islam we'd still have Sharia sexism.
Have you noticed that when the history of slavery is (PC) debated islam is always excluded/excused? Atlantic slave trade and Roman slaves are eagerly mentioned while the world's by far worst, longest and most extensive one is blinked, as is the fact that islam not only sanctions slavery but is itself built on slavery and sex slavery (rapetivism)! The core idea of islam is the most thoroughly elaborated parasitism ever, i.e. what in 1400 yrs has made it the by far worst crime ever. But thanks to islamic teachings muslims are kept extremely ignorant about the evil origin of islam (institutionalized parasitism based on slave finance, rapetivism and pillage). Ohlig: The first two "islamic" centuries lie in the shadows of history. Klevius: There was no islam or islamic Mohammad (that's why the Saudis have levelled Mohammad's "grave" etc), only the evil murdering, pillaging and raping Aramaic-Arabic Jewish("Christian") led illiterate Arab thugs chasing for booty and sex. The "success" of this formula became later institutionalized and codified as a one way (Koran/Sharia) moral excuse (Allah) for further racist/sexist genocides. The bedrock and currency of this system was racist slavery. However, with Enlightenment the new idea of individual (negative) Human Rights emerged (incl. abolishing of slavery) and were, much later (1948), written down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights according to which everyone is equal no matter of sex, beliefs etc. Just like in traffic! But unlike traffic rules no one really seems to care about guarding our most precious asset as human beings. Instead racist sexist islamofascism (OIC and the Cairo Sharia declaration) is protected by Human Rights while they strive to undermine and eventually destroy these Human Rights! And most people don't seem to get it. Always remember, there is no islam without Human Rights violating racist/sexist Sharia. So a "vote" for Sharia-islam is AGAINST democracy and the freedom part of Human Rights!

Sayeeda Warsi (UK's non-elected OIC/Sharia politician) in essence doesn't differ from those muslim Saudi women who approve of sex slavery etc, other than that she is either ignorant or a traitor (against democracy and Human Rights) of the worst kind.

We're all born unequal - that's why we need Human Rights, not islam!

Audi then built by Jewish slaves - today dangerous quality problems

Myth vs Truth

Japan's Hayabusa landed and returned to Earth many years before Europe's Rosetta failed to do so.

Monday, August 14, 2017

Why didn't Klevius get the Nobel prize for his groundbreaking* brain research (EMAH)? And praise** from animal activists!


* You can't find anything earlier than Klevius on this topic - no matter were you search! It's original research and it fulfills the criterion of fitting in the gaps that existing research has failed to explain. When in 1994 Klevius tried to publish the text in scientific AI magazines, one rejected it as 'too philosophical' for their type of magazine and the other as 'too empirical'! Moreover, wherever Klevius has presented the theory he has always asked receivers to comment, question or challenge it. No one, except for one of Klevius sons (who argues that a fruit fly has "consciousness" as well), has done it so far.

** Just consider how many animals could have been saved from suffering and death by directing research in accordance with Klevius theory, hence avoiding a lot of unnecessary dead ends. 

So why is Klevius bragging - or is he? 


Answer: In the service of better science. Why/how? Dichotomies created out of pre-established goals have cumulated in science in an accelerating tempo in line with Klevius chapter Science and its References (1992:40). Financing, politics and religion are some of the main culprits for this streamlining. And on the other hand, the best (least biased) science now resides outside "established" (compare media) science channels - but with limited access to basic resources which are withheld, usually behind a pay wall, by keeping new findings in secret etc..  Even though there are a few "established" proponents for a more open research realm (e.g. John Hawks), real openings for the future now lie in the independent blogosphere (compare e.g. Eurogenes). However, even such a forum is equally contaminated with less capable minds as is "established" science. When Klevius permanented his thoughts with publishing dates, ISBN numbers, correspondence etc.  he had a much lower expectation about his own capabilities compared to "established" science, but thought he might have had something new or of some importance to say. However, in retrospective Klevius has become increasingly disappointed with what "established" science has produced in some particular areas of his (and hopefully humankind's) interest. So Klevius isn't bragging - just disappointed with the frequent use of "science blockers".

Peter Klevius first in the world to explain why/how the Thalamus is at the center of your "consciousness", and more importantly, what "consciousness" really is


The text below is mostly very old and poorly edited - have mercy or donate! And do remember that Klevius will answer/explain any question you may pose via comments!

Klevius preface: Fake "research" vs. true science.


* Do note the difference between 'research' and 'science', e.g. by using Klevius definition and analysis of science. Normal research is the screwing and hammering pieces together. However, it often turns into more or less fake "research" under a financially or culturally biased professor etc. Science again, is ideally pure logic, but us pure logic per se has no meaningful existence, it has to be connected to human existence-centrism (see same named chapter in Klevius 1992:21), i.e. a human interface. So to do true science means to avoid as much as possible to contaminate it with bias. And of course, the goal isn't and could never be to eliminate (human) bias - only to make its human interface as wide as possible. The con side of this, however, is that good scientists and good science will always clash with someone/something. Compare this problem to much democracy of today that tries to capture a picture of the will of the people by using a 2 pixel democracy camera resulting in a 1 pixel result when the self evident solution would be to use high resolution digitalization via deeply profiled (with a variety of possible  voter interests taken account of) web voting giving a direct connection between the will of the people and factual politics. Such a system could also include triggers for existing laws re. particular issues so to make it easy for the voter to pinpoint his wishes in the general already existing political/legal reality.

Peter Klevius anti bias science cv timeline with examples of how truly scientific analysis* is made:


1 1979-1980 Klevius, in an effort to track the social origins and consequences of early civilizations, first concluded that the traces pointed north and to central-Asia. Klevius then sent a letter to the Finland-Swedish philosopher Georg Henrik von Wright (Wittgenstein's successor at Cambridge) about these thoughts and the new concept of 'extended demand for resources'. The letter can be found in the archive of now late GHvW (Klevius signed it with his mother's surname Kotilainen). The answer was very supportive as GHvW saw the concept and its embeddings as 'both original' and 'of significant importance for our understanding and analyzing of civilizations'.

2 1981 Klevius then published his thoughts for the first time under the title 'Demand for Resources' (still using his mother's surname). The publication was first delayed (possibly due to its heavy intellectuality for such a forum) but was eventually released due to GHvW being a friend of Jan Magnus Jansson* who was the editorial chief of Hufvudstadsbladet, in which the article first appeared - and was rewarded Fmk 500,- which at that time corresponded to a third of an average monthly net salary.

* Jan Magnus Jansson was a Professor of general state science at the University of Helsinki 1954–74 and chancellor for the Åbo Akademi University 1985 to 1991. He was the chairman of the (Finland-)Swedish People's Party (SPP) 1966 to 1973 and a Minister of Trade and Industry 1 January 1973 - 30 September 1974. Jansson was his Finland-Swedish party's presidential candidate in the elections of 1982.
3 1984 Klevius (still as Kotilainen) published his article 'The Green Dilemma' in which he warned for, on one hand the "Pentti Linkola effect"* of what some used to call "eco-fascism", and on the other hand a "green movement" that is "green" only to its name (Klevius exemplified with a family where the well paid husband travels with a big expensive and much fuel consuming car around the country selling cheap car etc. products to service stations, shops etc. while his not working wife drives around in an other car meeting with her "green" friends in activities of minor, or even opposite, greenish value). Moreover, this was Klevius first warning of the politicization of the green movement that today has made it a supporter of state socialism and islamofascism. 

* Pentti Linkola is a radical Finnish deep ecologist, polemicist and fisherman. He has written widely about his ideas and in Finland is a prominent, and highly controversial, thinker. Linkola was a year-round fisherman from 1959 to 1995. Linkola blames humans for the continuous degradation of the environment. He promotes rapid population decline in order to combat the problems commonly attributed to overpopulation. He is also strongly in favor of deindustrialization and opposes democracy, which he calls the "Religion of Death, believing it to be an agent of wasteful capitalism and consumerism. He considers the proponents of economic growth to be ignorant of the destructive effects which free market policies have had on the biosphere over the past two centuries.

1989 Klevius made a program about human evolution in which he also interviewed Richard Leakey. He also met with some guys from South Africa who knew a lot about "Bushmen". As a consequence Klevius studied what was known about them in the literature, e.g. Lee's !Kung reports. The simple question stood clear: Why would Africa's oldest population be cold-adapted, i.e. having clear mongoloid traits even though they were already heavily mixed with non-mongoloid Africans?

1990 Klevius wrote the short but intense (perhaps too intense, according to GHvW) book Demand for Resources (published 1992) - as a follow up to the 1981 article Demand for Resources. It's an analysis of physical and cultural evolution which main methodology is to look behind prevalent contemporary bias (defined as unproved convictions) such as e.g.:


1 Evolution out of nothing/God proposition countered by the question: What would be "nothing"?, hence revealing the total meaninglessness of the question: Why are we here? The equally meaningless counter question would be: Why would we be nowhere?

2 Human evolution to what we are today. The unproved populist theory "out of Africa" seemed spurious in general and did not fit the fact that native Africans such as Khoesan speakers are mongoloids and that big brained early Homos (e.g. Jinniushan) roamed northern China (i.e. cold "mongoloid territory") already almost 300,000 years ago. Also do note that we lack Neanderthal skulls from the very north, and that Europe is a receiver of the Gulf stream. So far we don't even know how "Neanderthal" skulls from more northern parts really looked like. Interestingly, Georg Henrik von Wright considered the last chapter named Khoe, San and Bantu the least important in the book.

3 The linguistic terms Khoe-San and Bantu in Africa exemplify three main categories of way of living: Hunter-gatherers (called gatherer-hunters in the book), pastorals, and farmers. These reveal a transition from almost neutral* demand for resources to expanded demand for resources (this should not be confused with the fact that hunter-gatherers need much more space). You want what you need but you necessarily don't need what you want. Expanded demand for resources is the basis for investment compared to neutral demand for resources in many pre-civilisatoric societies - a fact that Karl Marx missed but Claude Levi-Strauss sort of touched upon with his division of societies in 'warm' and 'cold' using terms from thermodynamics.

4 The observation/understanding dichotomy seems to be a repetition of the ghost/machine dichotomy trapped as it is in its own "Homunculus spirality". So instead Klevius proposed an intellectual "digitalization" of the brain, i.e. a "relief" from the old view of "categories". One such "category" is 'language' although there's no definition of it that matches its use as particularly human. Not that 'language' isn't a useful concept in our everyday "language game", but rather that 'language' can not be distinguished from other activities in a meaningful way when it comes to understanding the mind.


2003/4 Klevius for the first time presented the view about a better packed brain as the reason to the sudden jump in human sophistication. However, this was clearly already hinted at in Klevius book Demand for Resources (1992 ISBN 9173288411) where the question was posed why big skulled homos some 300,000 bp didn't manage to do what we've done.

2004 the discovery of Homo floresiensis in SE Asia was presented, and as a consequence Klevius immediately connected it with the obvious possibility of similar evolutionary island dwarfing even north of the Wallace line that later could branche towards the big skulled northerners. The discoveries from 2010 on of a 50,000 bp sewing needle, a more than 40,000 bp sophisticated stone bracelet and the DNA evidence of at least three Homo species mixing/hybridizing in the Altai region/southern Siberia, made Klevius theory even more plausible. At the same time conventional theorists were "confused" and "puzzled" because their theories failed to fit the new landscape.

 The Viking age started in the east ca. 750, i.e. many decades before going west. Also consider that Gotland used to be part of Kvenland/Finnland.

Origin of the Vikings

2005/6 Klevius realized the equally obvious answer to the question why Swedish Vikings would first have gone north and east into Finnish territories instead of south and west where everyone talked the same language. The answer was of course that they weren't Swedes bu Finland-Swedes, i.e. Finns who had become bilingual in the borderline between Indo European and Uralic.

All of these "insights" were simple - as long as you just question prevailing bias - and possess enough intellectual power (knowledge) as well as processing power (intelligence). When people get annoyed about Klevius fast and broad thinking (which he himself can't avoid without acting more stupid than he is) they can be assured that they always have time on their side in case they are right and Klevius wrong.

Klevius analysis of bias in sex segregation/apartheid (with numerous writings, debates, radio/TV programs, film etc. has gone on since his teenage years as part of his view that the ideology of (negative) Human Rights as stated in the 1948 Universal Human Rights Declaration, is the only logical way to go that can't be opposed without being racist/sexist: How can males and females "have the same sexuality" if testosterone is the "sex hormone" and females have 10-15 times less of it? Moreover, if reproduction happens in females, then males have to be attracted to females - not necessarily the other way round.

EMAH, the theory of mind that makes our brain less human and ourselves more human


The text below, based on Peter Klevius book Demand for Resources (1992 in Swedish) and presented for Francis Crick (1994-5), was made globally accessible on line in 2004. In today's communicative environment and with some additional findings Klevius would perhaps have honed it slightly differently although not altering the basis of the theory at all. However, here it is in its original form (main text from 1992 and 1994-5 plus the 2004 web introduction on www.klevius.info*).

* Do note that www.klevius.info is an experimental web museum created 2003 and with no changes for more than a decade. Keep this in mind when reading it.

EMAH text from Klevius web museum:


EMAH (the Even More Astonishing Hypothesis**)
Continuous integration in Thalamus of complex neural patterns without assistance of Homunculus constitutes the basis for memory and "consciousness"            

(*AI = artificial intelligence)
(** The EMAH title applied 1994 alluding to Francis Crick's book
The Astonishing Hypothesis)

by Peter Klevius (1992-94, and 2004)


These links were on the original 2004 web page

Sex segregation from Freud to bin Ladin
Do you believe in Freud? See timeline describing his lifelong and populist "scientific" defense of sex segregation and how he treated/limited his wife!

KLEVIUS' INTERDISCIPLINARY NEWS BLOG: Increase in the dehumanization of women in mainly muslim countries


KLEVIUS' ANTI SEX SEGREGATION BLOG



Basic Concepts in Depth




Sex-segregation




Klevius' Psychosocial Freud Timeline




Psycho State Marries the Social State




Main page with World Values Survey










Klevius' definition of religion  

Inside Klevius' mind




Introduction to EMAH which basis was made public 1992 in Sweden (the home land of the Nobel prize)


Introduction to EMAH, the Even More Astonishing Hypothesis* - AI and the deconstruction of the brain by Peter Klevius

*compare Francis Crick's The Astonishing Hypothesis   

Translation from Resursbegär (Demand for Resources 1992 p 32-33).


A critique of Habermas' dichotomy observing/understanding in The Theory of Communicative Action (1981):

1  Observing a stone = perception understood by the viewer
2  I observe a stone = the word 'stone' (uttered, written etc.) i.e. intelligible for an other person

Although I assume that Habermas would consider the latter example communication because of an allusion (via the language) to the former, I would argue that this "extension" of the meaning of the utterance cannot be demonstrated as being essentially different from the original observation/understanding. Consequently there exists no "abstract" meaning of symbols, which fact of course eliminates the symbol itself. The print color/waves (sound or light etc) of the word "stone" does not differ from the corresponding ones of a real or a fake (e.g. paper maché) stone.

The dichotomy observation/understanding hence cannot be upheld because there does not exist a theoretically defendable difference. What is usually expressed in language games as understanding is a historical - and often hierarchical - aspect of a particular phenomenon/association. Thus it is not surprising that Carl Popper and John C. Eccles tend to use culture-evolutionary interpretations to make pre-civilized human cultures fit in Popper´s World 1 to World 3 system of intellectual transition.


"Subliminal" selection of what we want to interpret as meaningful

The ever-present subsidiary awareness that lies behind the naive concept of "subliminal perceptions" is no more mystifying than the fact that we can walk and play musical instruments without paying direct awareness/attention to it.                                                                         


Representations and properties

Representations are dependent on properties but if there are no properties (and there is certainly a philosophical lack of any such evidence although the concept is still popular in many camps) then there are no representations either. What should be represented (see above and below)?

The lost ghost in the machine and the psychoanalytic chameleon Mr. Nobody

There has been an all time on-going development within biology, genetics, AI research and robot technology, which narrows our view on, not only the difference between animals and humans, but also the gap between what is considered living and dead matter. Not only free will, but also properties and representations/symbols are getting all the more complicated and vanishing as their subjective meaning seems less usable in a new emerging understanding of our environmental positioning. Although the psychoanalytic movement seems ready to confirm/adapt to this development equally fast as Freud himself changed his ideas to fit into new scientific discoveries (it was a pity he didn't get a chance to hear about Francis Crick) psychoanalysis is forever locked out from this reality. PA is doomed to hang on the back of development just as feminism and middle-class politics, without any clue on the direction (neither on the individual nor the collective/cultural level).

Psychoanalysis has survived just because of its weakest (in fact, absent) link, namely the lack of a border between folk psychology and itself. The diagnosis for psychoanalysis would consequently be borderline.

Sigmund's dream of a biological psychoanalysis was his biggest mistake.




The entire EMAH hypothesis (1994) as it emerged after the above criticism of Habermas and some new research about cortex-thalamus connections.




1991 presented for Georg Henrik von Wright, 1994 presented for Francis Crick and 2004 presented on the world wide web*.

* this text used to be on Yahoo's Geocities which is now terminated - by Yahoo



EMAH


Abstract: Thalamus is the least discussed yet perhaps the most important piece in the puzzle of mind, due to its central function as the main relay station between body actions and environment. A critical assessment of concepts such as: observation/understanding, mind/body, free will and language reveals an inescapable awareness in the Thalamic "meet-puts". In conclusion memories hence may be better described as linguistic traps rather than as distinct entities. The continuity model proposed in EMAH also avoids the limitations of a "discrete packets of information" model.
Note. In some respect the neural network of "lower" systems such as the spinal cord and cerebellum by far outperforms the cortex. This is because of different tasks (fast motorics and slow adaptations) and due difference in processing. (Copyright Peter Klevius).




Introduction

Understanding how social behavior and its maintenance in human and other forms of life (incl. plants etc) evolved has nothing to do with “the balance between self interest and co-operative behavior” but all to do with kinship and friendship. Although humans may be attributed a more chaotic (i.e. more incalculable) "personality", they are, like life in general, just robots (i.e. active fighters against entropy – see Demand for Resources - on the right to be poor). Misunderstanding (or plain ignorance of – alternatively ideological avoidance of) kinship (kin recognition), friendship (symbiosis), and AI (robotics) pave the way for the formulation of unnecessary, not to say construed, problems which, in an extension, may become problematic themselves precisely because they hinder an open access for direct problem solving (see e.g. Angels of Antichrist – kinship vs. social state).



The Future of a "Gap" (copyright P. Klevius 1992-2004)

Human: What is a human being? Can the answer be found in a non-rational a priori statement (compare e.g. the axiomatic Human Rights individual) or in a logical analysis of the "gap" between human beings and others? The following analysis uses an "anti-gap" approach. It also rests on the struggle and success of research performed in the field of artificial intelligence (AI), robotics etc.

Signal: A "signal gap" is commonly understood as a break in the transition from input to output, i.e., from perception to behavior. Mentalists use to fill the gap with "mind" while behaviorists don't bother because they can't even see it.

Matter: Berkeley never believed in matter. What you experience is what you get and the rest is in the hands of "God" (i.e. uncertainty). This view makes him a super-determinist without "real" matter.

Mind: The confusing mind-body debate originates in the Cartesian dualism, which divides the world into two different substances, which, when put together, are assumed to make the world intelligible. However, on the contrary, they seem to have created a new problem based on this very assumption.

Free will: Following a mind-body world view, many scholars prefer to regard human beings as intentional animals fueled by free will. It is, however, a challenging task to defend such a philosophical standpoint. Not even Martin Luther managed to do it, but rather transferred free will to God despite loud protests from Erasmus and other humanists. Although Luther's thoughts in other respects have had a tremendous influence on Western thinking, this particular angle of view has been less emphasized.

Future: When asked about the "really human" way of thinking, many mentalists refer to our capacity to "calculate" the future. But is there really a future out there? All concepts of the future seem trapped in the past. We cannot actually talk about a certain date in the future as real future. What we do talk about is, for example, just a date in an almanac. Although it is a good guess that we are going to die, the basis for this reasoning always lies in the past. The present hence is the impenetrable mirror between the "real future" and ourselves. Consequently every our effort to approach this future brings us back in history. Closest to future we seem to be when we live intensely in the immediate present without even thinking about future. As a consequence the gap between sophisticated human planning and "instinctual" animal behavior seems less obvious. Is primitive thinking that primitive after all?
An additional aspect of future is that neither youth, deep freezing or a pill against aging will do as insurance for surviving tomorrow.

Observation and Understanding (copyright P. Klevius 1992-2004)

If one cannot observe something without understanding it, all our experiences are illusions because of the eternal string of corrections made by later experiences. What seems to be true at a particular moment may turn out to be something else in the next, and what we call understanding hence is merely a result of retrospection.The conventional way of grasping the connection between sensory input and behavioral output can be described as observation, i.e. as sensory stimulation followed by understanding. The understanding that it is a stone, for example, follows the observing of a stone. This understanding might in turn produce behavior such as verbal information. To do these simple tasks, however, the observer has to be equipped with some kind of "knowledge," i.e., shared experience that makes him/her culturally competent to "understand" and communicate. This understanding includes the cultural heritage embedded in the very concept of a stone.

Categorization belongs to the language department, which, on the brain level, is only one among many other behavioral reactions. But due to its capability to paraphrase itself, it has the power to confuse our view on how we synchronize our stock of experience. When we look at a stone, our understanding synchronizes with the accumulated inputs associated with the concept of a stone. "It must be a stone out there because it looks like a stone," we think. As a result of such synchronization, our brain intends to continue on the same path and perhaps do something more (with "intention"). For example, we might think, "Let's tell someone about it." The logical behavior that follows can be an expression such as, "Hey look, it's a stone out there." Thus, what we get in the end is a concept of a stone and, after a closer look, our pattern of experience hidden in it.If the stone, when touched, turns out to be made of paper maché, then the previous perception is not deepened, but instead, switched to a completely new one.

One might say that a stone in a picture is a real stone, while the word "stone" written on a piece of paper is not. The gap here is not due to different representations but rather to different contexts.When one tries to equalize observation with understanding, the conventional view of primitive and sophisticated thinking might be put in question. We act like no more than complex worms and the rest, such as sophistication, is only a matter of biased views built on different stocks of experience. But a worm, just like a computer, is more than the sum of its parts.

Therefore, meaning, explanation and understanding are all descriptions of the same basic principle of how we synchronize perceptions with previous experiences. For the fetus or the newborn child, the inexperienced (unsynchronized, or uncertainty/"god" if you prefer) part of the inside-outside communication is considerably huge. Hence the chaotic outside world (i.e., the lack of its patterns of meaningfulness) has to be copied in a stream of experiences, little by little, into the network couplings of the brain. When the neural pattern matches the totality (meaningfulness) its information potential disappears. On top of this, there is in the fetus a continuous growth of new neurons, which have to be connected to the network. As a result of these processes, the outside world is, at least partly, synchronized with the inside, mental world. Heureka, the baby finally begins to think and exist! In other words, the baby records changes against a background of synchronized inputs.

* see "existence centrism" in Demand for Resources for a discussion abt a shrinking god and the allmighty human!

The Category of the Uniquely Human (copyright P. Klevius 1992-2004)

A main difficulty in formulating the concept of consciousness is our pride (presumably we should have been equally proud as mice) and our strong belief in "something uniquely human." However, if we try to follow the die-hard determinists, we would probably find free will and destiny easier to cope with, and also that the concept of "the unique human being" is rather a question of point of view. Following this line of thought, I suggest turning to old Berkeley as well as to Ryle but excluding Skinnerian Utopias. Those who think the word determinism sounds rude and blunt can try to adorn it with complexity to make it look more chaotic.Chaos here means something you cannot overview no matter how deterministic it might be. We seem to like complexity just because we cannot follow the underlying determinism. Maybe the same is to be said of what it really is to be a human? A passion for uncertainty, i.e. life itself.Francis Crick in The Astonishing Hypothesis: "... your sense of personal identity and free will are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules."

This statement is easy to agree on, so let me continue with another, perhaps more useful, quote from Crick: "Categories are not given to us as absolutes. They are human inventions."I think these two statements create an efficient basis for further investigations into the mystery of thinking. Hopefully you will forgive me now as I'm going to try to abolish not only the memory but also the free will and consciousness altogether. Then, I will go even one step further to deny that there are any thoughts (pictures, representations, etc.) at all in the cortex. At this point, many might agree, particularly regarding the cortex of the author of this text.
The main problem here is the storage of memories, with all their colors, smells, feelings and sounds. Crick suggests the dividing of memory into three parts: episodic, categorical and procedural. While that would be semantically useful, I'm afraid it would act more like an obstacle in the investigation of the brain, because it presupposes that the hardware uses the same basis of classification and, like a virus, hence infects most of our analyses.


Nerves, Loops and "Meet-puts" (copyright P. Klevius 1992-2004)

According to Crick, "each thalamic area also receives massive connections from the cortical areas to which it sends information. The exact purpose of these back connections is not yet known." In the following paragraphs, I will outline a hypothetical model in line with this question.The interpretation of the interface between brain and its surrounding as it is presented here has the same starting point as Crick's theory but divides thinking into a relay/network system in the cortex and the perception terminals (or their representatives in the thalamus) around the body like an eternal kaleidoscope. Under this model, imagination would be a back-projected pattern of nerve signals, equal to the original event that caused them but with the signals faded. This view suggests that there are not only inputs and outputs but also "meet-puts," i.e., when an input signal goes through and evolves into other signals in the cortex, these new signals meet other input signals in the thalamus.

There is no limit to the possible number of patterns in such a system, and there is no need for memory storage but rather, network couplings. These "couplings," or signals, are constantly running in loops (not all simultaneously but some at any given moment) from the nerve endings in our bodies through the network in the cortex and back again to the thalamus. Of course the back-projected signals have to be discriminated from incoming signals, thereby avoiding confusion regarding fantasy and reality. But this process, though still unknown, could be quite simple and perhaps detected simply by the direction where it comes from. As a consequence of the loops, the back-projected pattern differs from the incoming signals, or the stimuli.Therefore, every signal from the body?perceptions, hormonal signals and so on, either finds its familiar old routes or patterns of association in the network (established experiences) or creates new connections (new experiences) that can be of varying durability. For example, if someone is blind from the moment of birth, he or she will have normal neuronal activity in the cortex area of vision. On the other hand, in case of an acquired blindness, the level of activity in the same area will become significantly lower over time. This is logical according to the EMAH model because, in the former case, the neurons have never become involved in association patterns of vision but were engaged in other tasks. In the latter case, the neurons have partly remained in previous vision patterns, which are no longer in use, while the rest has moved onto other new tasks.

It is important to note that human thinking, contrary to what today's computers do, involves the perceptions that originate from the chemical processes in the body's hormonal system, what we carelessly name "emotions." This, I think, is the main source behind the term "human behavior." The difference between man and machine is a source of concern but, as I see it, there is no point in making a "human machine." But perhaps someone might be interested in building a "human-like machine".


Body vs. Environment - a History of Illusions (copyright P. Klevius 1992-2004)

According to the EMAH model, its nerves define our body. This view does not exactly resemble our conventional view of the human body. Thus, our hormonal signals inside our body, for example, can be viewed?at least partially?as belonging to the environment surrounding the EMAH-body.The meaning of life is to uphold complexity by guarding the borders and it is ultimately a fight against entropy. In this struggle, life is supported by a certain genetic structure and metabolism, which synchronizes its dealings with the surrounding environment. Balancing and neutralizing these dealings is a job done by the nerves.



A major and crucial feature of this "body-guarding" mechanism is  knowledge of  difference in the directions between incoming signals and outgoing, processed signals. On top of this, both areas changes continuously and thus have to be matched against each other to uphold or even improve the complexity. According to this model, people suffering from schizophrenia, just like healthy people, have no problem in discriminating between inputs and outputs. In fact, we can safely assume that the way they sometimes experience hallucinations is just like the way we experience nightmares. Both hallucinations and nightmares seem so frightening because they are perceived as incoming signals and confused as real perceptions. The problem for the schizophrenic lies in a defect in processing due to abnormal functions in and among the receptors on the neurons, which makes the association pattern unstable and "creative" in a way that is completely different compared with controlled fantasies. In the case of nightmares, the confusion is related to low and fluctuating energy levels during sleep.A frightful hallucination is always real because it is based on perceptions. What makes it an illusion is when it is viewed historically from a new point of view or experienced in a new "now," i.e., weighed and recorded as illusory from a standpoint that differs from the original one. In conclusion, one can argue that what really differentiates a frightful ghost from a harmless fantasy is that we know the latter being created inside our body, whereas we feel unsure about the former.


EMAH Computing as Matched Changes (copyright P. Klevius 1992-2004)

EMAH does not support the idea that information is conveyed over distances, both in the peripheral and central nervous systems, by the times of occurrence of action potentials?

"All we are hypothesizing is that the activity in V1 does not directly enter awareness. What does enter awareness, we believe, is some form of the neural activity in certain higher visual areas, since they do project directly to prefrontal areas. This seems well established for cortical areas in the fifth tier of the visual hierarchy, such as MT and V4." (Crick & Koch, 1995a,b).  Hardware in a computer is, together with software (should be “a program” because this word signals programming more directly), specified at the outset. A high level of flexibility is made possible through the hardware's ability to unceasingly customize to incoming signals. This is partly what differs human beings from a machine. The rest of the differentiating factors include our perceptions of body chemistry such as hormones, etc. Programming a computer equipped with flexible hardware, i.e., to make them function like neurons, will, according to the EMAH-model, make the machine resemble the development of a fetus or infant to a certain extent. The development of this machine depends on the type of input terminals.

All input signals in the human, including emotional ones, involve a feedback process that matches the incoming signals from the environment with a changing copy of it in the form of representations in the brain's network couplings.Life starts with a basic set of neurons, the connections of which grow as experiences come flooding in. This complex body of neuronal connections can be divided into permanent couplings, the sum of experiences that is your "personality," and temporary couplings, short-term "memories" for everyday use.

A certain relay connection, if activated, results in a back-projected signal toward every receptor originally involved and thus creates, in collaboration with millions of other signals, a "collage" that we often call awareness. This is a constant flow and is in fact what we refer to as the mysterious consciousness. At this stage, it is important to note that every thought, fantasy or association is a mix of different kinds of signals. You cannot, for example, think about a color alone because it is always "in" or "on" something else (on a surface or embedded in some kind of substance) and connected by relay couplings to other perceptions or hormonal systems. "Meaning" is thus derived from a complex mix of the loops between perceptions and back-projected perceptions. This can be compared to a video camera system with a receiving screen and a back-projecting screen. The light meter is the "personality" and the aperture control the motor system. However, this system lacks the complex network system found in the cortex and thus has no possibility to "remember." The recorded signal is of course not equivalent to the brain?s network couplings because it is fixed.To save "bytes," our brains actually tend to "forget" what has been synchronized rather than remember it. Such changes in the brain?not memories?are what build up our awareness. This process is in fact a common technique in transmitting compressed data.


Short-Term Memories and Dreams (copyright P. Klevius 1992-2004)

At any given moment, incoming signals, or perceptions, have to be understood through fitting and dissolving in the net of associations. If there are new, incomprehensible signals, they become linked (coupled) to the existing net and localized in the present pattern of associations. Whether their couplings finally vanish or stay depends on how they fit into the previous pattern and/or what happens next.

As a consequence of this coupling process, memories in a conventional, semantic meaning do not exist, because everything happens now. Consciousness or awareness is something one cannot influence, but rather, something that involves an ongoing flow of information to and from nerve endings through the brain (a relay station). For every given moment (now), there is consequently only one possible way of acting. One cannot escape awareness or decisions because whatever one thinks, it is based on the past and will rule the future. Memories are thus similar to fantasies of the future, based on and created by experiences.Regarding short-term memory, I agree with Crick's view and hypothesis. But I certainly would not call it memory, only weaker or vanishing couplings between neurons. Remember that with this model, the imagination of something or someone seen a long time ago always has to be projected back on the ports were it came through and thus enabling the appropriate association pattern. Although signals in each individual nerve are all equal, the back-projected pattern makes sense only as a combination of signals. The relay couplings in the cortex is the "code," and the receptor system is the "screen." Because this system does not allow any "escape" from the ever changing "now" which determines the dealings with the surrounding environment. Living creatures are forced to develop their software by living.

Dreams are, according to this model, remains of short-term memories from the previous day(s), connected and mixed with relevant association patterns but excluding a major part of finer association structures. This is why dreams differ from conscious thinking. The lack of finer association structures is due to low or irregular activity levels in the brain during sleep. The results are "confused thoughts," which are quite similar to those of demented people, whose finer neural structures are damaged because of tissue death due to a lack of appropriate blood flow. Thus dreams are relevantly structured but in no way a secret message in the way psychoanalysts see them, whereas patients with dementia tend to go back to their childhood due to the irrevocable nature of the physical retardation process.Investigating dreams and their meanings by interpreting them is essentially the same as labeling them as psychological (in a psychoanalytical sense). A better and less biased result would emerge if the researcher actually lived with the subject the day before the dream occurred. Rather than analyzing pale and almost vanished childhood experiences from a view trapped in theoretical prejudices that describe an uncertain future, the researcher should perhaps put more efforts in the logic of the presence.


Donald Duck and a Stone in the Holy Land of Language (copyright P. Klevius 1992-2004)

Wittgenstein: "Sie ist kein Etwas, aber auch nicht ein Nichts!" (Phil. Untersuch. 304). Also see P. Klevius' analysis of a stone (in Demand for Resources - on the right to be poor, 1992).

Although Wittgenstein describes language as a tool it seems more appropriate to classify it as human behavior. Unlike tools language is a set (family) of a certain kind of bodily reactions (internal and/or towards its environment). We have to reject, not only the grammar which tries to force  itself on us", but also, and perhaps even more so, representations we, without any particular reason, assign to language.

Language is basically vocal but apart from that little has been said about its real boundaries. One could actually argue that the best definition is perhaps the view that language is a human territory. The question whether animals have a language is then consequently meaningless. On the other hand, Wittgenstein denied the existence of a "private language" because applying it could never prove the validity of its products.We are trapped in words and connotations of language although these categories themselves, like language in general, are completely arbitrary  "language games," as Wittgenstein would have put it. (No offense, Mr Chomsky and others, but this is the tough reality for those trying to make sense of it in the efforts of constructing intelligent,talking computers). Furthermore, these categories change over time and within different contexts with overlapping borders.

Changing language games provide endless possibilities for creating new "language products", such as e.g. psycho-dynamic psychology. I believe this is exactly what Wittgenstein had in mind when he found Freud interesting as a player of such games but with nothing to say about the scientific roots of the mental phenomenon.Let's image Donald Duck and a picture of a stone. Like many psychological terms, Donald Duck is very real in his symbolized form but nonetheless without any direct connection to the reality that he symbolizes. In this sense, even the word stone has no connection to the reality for those who don't speak English. Words and languages are shared experiences.

It is said that a crucial feature of language is its ability to express past and future time. This might be true but in no way makes language solely human. When bees arrives to their hive they are able, in symbolic form, to express what they have seen in the past so that other bees will "understand" what to do in the future. Naming this an instinct just because bees have such an uncomplicated brain does not justify a different classification to that of the human thinking.If, as I proposed in Demand for Resources (1992), we stop dividing our interactions with the surrounding world in terms of observation and understanding (because there is no way of separating them), we will find it easier to compare different human societies. By categorization, language is an extension of perception/experience patterns and discriminates us as human only in the sense that we have different experiences. Words are just like everything else that hits our receptors. There is no principle difference in thinking through the use of words or through sounds, smells (albeit not through thalamus), pictures or other "categories." Ultimately, language is, like other types of communication with the surrounding world, just a form of resistance against entropy.

To define it more narrowly, language is also the room where psychoanalysis is supposed to live and work. A stone does not belong to language, but the word "stone" does. What is the difference? How does the word differ from the symbolic expression of a "real" stone in front of you? Or if we put it the other way round: What precisely makes it a stone? Nothing, except for the symbolic value derived from the word "stone." The term "observation" thus implicates an underlying "private language."When Turing mixed up his collapsing bridges with math, he was corrected by Wittgenstein, just as Freud was corrected when he tried to build psychological courses of events on a basis of natural science. Wittgenstein's "no" to Turing at the famous lecture at Cambridge hit home the difference between games and reality.

Archetypes and grammar as evolutionary tracks imprinted in our genes is a favorite theme among certain scholars. But what about other skills? Can there also be some hidden imprints that make driving or playing computer games possible? And what about ice hockey, football, chess, talk shows, chats and so on? The list can go on forever. Again, there is no distinguishing border between evolutionary "imprints" and other stimulus/response features in ordinary life.


"Primitive" vs. "Sophisticated" Thinking (copyright P. Klevius 1992-2004)

The more synchronized (informed) something or someone is with its surrounding reality, the less dynamics/interest this something or someone invests in its relationship with that particular reality. Interest causes investment and social entropy excludes investment economy because economy is always at war against entropy. The key to economical success is luck and thus includes lack of knowledge. No matter how well a business idea is outlined and performed, the success or lack of success is ultimately unforeseeable.In Demand for Resources I discussed the possibility of some serious prejudice hidden in Karl Poppers' top achievement of civilization, namely the "World 3" and his and Eccles' assumption of an increasing level of sophistication from the primitive to the modern stage of development. It is of course easy to be impressed by the sophistication of the artificial, technical environment constructed by man, including language and literature, etc. But there is nonetheless a striking lack of evidence in support of a higher degree of complexity in the civilized human thinking than that of e.g. Australian Aboriginals, say 25,000 years ago. Needless to say, many hunting-gathering societies have been affluent in the way that they have food, shelter and enough time to enrich World 3, but in reality they have failed to do so.

Even on the level of physical anthropology, human evolution gives no good, single answer to our originality. What is "uniquely human" has rested on a "gap," which is now closed, according to Richard Leakey and Roger Lewin, among others. This gap is presumably the same as the one between sensory input and behavioral output mentioned above.From an anthropological point of view, it can be said that a computer lacks genetic kinship, which, however, is a rule without exception in the animate world, although we in the West seem to have underestimated its real power.


De-constructing the Mind (copyright P. Klevius 1992-2004)

A deconstruction of our underlying concepts of the brain can easily end up in serious troubles due to the problem with language manipulation. Wittgenstein would probably have suggested us to leave it as it is. If language is a way of manipulating a certain area - language - then the confusion will become even greater if we try to manipulate the manipulation! But why not try to find out how suitable "the inner environment" is for deconstruction? After all, this environment presupposes some kind of biology at least in the border line between the outside and the inside world. Are not behavioral reactions as well as intra-bodily causes, e g hormones etc. highly dependent on presumed biological "starting points"? How does skin color or sex hormones affect our thinking? Where do causes and reactions start and isn't even the question a kind of explanation and understanding?

Determinists usually do not recognize the point of free will although they admit the possible existence of freedom. Why? Obviously this needs some Wittgensteinian cleaning of the language. Unfortunately I'm not prepared for the task, so let's pick up only the best looking parts, that words as freedom, will, mind, etc., are semantic inventions and that they have no connections to anything else (i.e., matter) if not proved by convincing and understandable evidence. Does this sound familiar and maybe even boring? Here comes the gap again.Stimuli and response seen purely as a reflex is not always correct, says G. H. von Wright, because sometimes there may be a particular reason causing an action. According to von Wright, an acoustic sensation, for example, is mental and semantic and thus out of reach for the scientific understanding of the body-mind interaction. Is this a view of a diplomatic gentleman eating the cake and wanting to keep it too? To me, it is a deterministic indeterminist's view.

G. H. von Wright concludes that what we experience in our brain is the meaning of its behavioral effects. In making such a conclusion that it is rather a question of two different ways of narrowing one's view on living beings von Wright seems to narrow himself to Spinoza?s view.Is meaning meaningful or is it perhaps only the interpreter's random projection of himself or herself? Is it, in other words, based only on the existence of the word meaning?

Aristotle divided the world primarily into matter and definable reality (psyche). As many other Greek philosophers, Aristotle was an individualist and would have fitted quite well in the Western discourse of today. Berkeley, who was a full-blood determinist, however recognized the sameness in mind and matter and handed both over to "god". Consequently Philonous' perceived sensations in the mind were not directly aligned with Hylas view of immediate perceptions. We thus end up with Berkeley as a spiritual die-hard determinist challenging materialistic humanism.


Conclusion
                                                                             
In conclusion one might propose a rethinking of the conventional hierarchy of the brain. What we use to call "higher levels", perhaps because they are more pronounced in humans, are in fact only huge "neural mirrors" for the real genius, thalamus (and its capability of two-way communication with extensions in the cerebellum, spine, nerv ends etc), i.e. what has sometimes been interpreted as part of the "primitive" system.. In other words, one may propose a view describing the "gap" between humans and animals as a quantitative difference in the amount/power of cerebral "mirroring" and communication with thalamus, rather than as a distinct qualitative feature. Nothing, except our "emotions", seems to hinder us from making a "human machine". And because these very "emotions" are lived experiences (there is, for example, no way to scientifically establish what could be considered "emotions" in a fetus) nothing, except the meaninglessness in the project itself, could hinder us from allowing a machine to "live" a "human life".

So what about human rights for a computer (Honda's Asimo robot) loaded with all possible human "emotions"? Is Asimo human or Klevius inhuman? Is death what ultimately unites humans? So what abt a hypothetical memory card containing a lifetime of experience? Or a fetus with hardly no experience at all?

Klevius comment: A thoroughly honest approach towards others combined with negative human rights seems to be the only acceptable framework for being really human. This approach hence excludes segregation as well as "monotheist"* religions (but see Klevius definition of religion).

Sunday, August 13, 2017

Klevius: England has more than enough "islamophobes" (i.e. anti sharia and pro Human Rights) to win an election - and a majority of "muslims" would probably approve of it

What is islam - and who is a muslim? Klevius suggests letting all "islamophobes" (incl. "muslim" ones)  out of the closet.


Merkel's flirt with Erdogan pushed England (not UK) over the Brexit cliff - May's flirt with the islamofascist Saudi "guardians of islam" lands it in a sharia swamp.


England committed a violation of fairness and legality when not allowing EU residents to vote about their own future - while allowing residents from non-EU nations to do so.

It would have been easy to include EU residents in this particular election.

Klevius advise to UKIP - independence for all parts of UK:

There's a huge demand for a new party. With just a slight altering UKIP could really be what its name stands for.



Anne Marie Waters islam criticism can give UKIP more votes than ever. The number of hiding "islamophobes" coming out in the voting boot would guarantee it. And if UKIP takes care of EU residents' full rights and then stops further immigration while putting the lid on sharia islamofascism - that would be a party program for success.

However, she has to pinpoint how sharia islam violates he most basic of Human Rights.

Talk Saudi based and steered OIC and its world sharia, Saudi Arabia's islamofascism spreading all over England with keen support from Theresa May, and explain to the people that islam in any meaningful form doesn't approve of the most basic of Human Rights, i.e what used to be the core of European values.

Moreover, ask the voters why England can't have a party leader whose opinion about sharia islam is the same as the one articulated by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

And why hide behind pathetic and truly evil rhetoric by only pointing to harmless cultural "muslims" - or "spiritual muslims" or just ignorant muslims without a clue about the true meaning of basic Human Rights and democracy, i.e. those who don't share the basic tenets of Saudi/OIC/Sharia islam and who happily would like to adopt to secular values witjhout having to fear islam's evil apostasy curse.

And why wouldn't islam be evil if its "custodians" are islamofascists and considered top muslims and leading and harboring the world's most important muslim organization (OIC)? Or are the islamic hate spreading Saudis no muslims after all?!

BBC (John Humhrey): It's tradition and pressure against women - but it's not legal. So why not let muslims continue these pressure traditions under sharia.


The deputy leader of the party ripped into the broadcaster during the debate on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, insisting England should have “a single legal system”.

But the presenter made the case that sharia courts were about adhering to “traditions” rather than implementing a parallel legal system.

Klevius: Racist and sexist islamofascist "traditions" are evil - period.


Klevius wrote:

Monday, May 01, 2017

Why is UKIP shooting itself in the foot with a Saudi/OIC made "islamophobia" bullet?


UKIP could get some half of the (non-sharia) muslim votes if they dared to criticize evil sharia islam instead of trying to kick out their bravest member, Anne Marie Waters.



Not only would a clear distinction between sharia muslims* and non-sharia "muslims" distinguish UKIP from Theresa May's pro-sharia policy, but it would also offer apostasy scared "muslims" a safe secret space in the voting boot - something that no other party seems to offer. In today's "islamophobia racism" accusations fascism, voters of all and no faith would finally have a channel for what they really think if a political party would just give them the chance.

* Defined as violating the most basic Human Rights equality as stated in the 1948 Universal Human Rights Declaration which was intended to stop all kinds of fascism - including religious ones.

Anne Marie Waters:   I would actually describe myself as a nationalist. I want the preservation of the nation-state. I’ve been very clear about that. The nation-state is the only way to guarantee accountable government. We cannot be governed by unelected globalist committees, as we are now. I mean, the United Nations may not have legal power to govern us, but our leaders are consistently seeking permission to run their own countries from internationalist bodies. I want the nation-state to run itself.

    The reason I object to “white nationalist” – and I have no problem with being white, and I have no problem with being nationalist – but the implication behind that is that I think you have to be white, for example, to be a British patriot. You do not. You do not. There are people of all colors in this country who want to preserve and respect British heritage and history.

Klevius comment: While Theresa May says that the Brits benefit from sharia, that doesn't mean that sharia is a "British value", does it. Nor is Theresa May's "investigation" of UK sharia courts serious because she uses a sharia muslim to complete the task. A serious investigator should have been someone whose expertise is UK law and Human Rights.


Thursday, August 10, 2017

Peter Klevius' human evolution analysis update: The sophistication plus a new age estimate of the Denisovan bracelet is a definitive blow to any "out of Africa" myth - as if it was even needed.


Why have "out-of-Africa" propagandists like Pääbo & Co been so silent* these last years?! Because the Denisovan in Siberia refutes out of Africa - as analyzed by Klevius 1992 (Jinniushan), 2004 (H. floresiensis), 2008 (Denisova bracelet), 2010 (Densiovan DNA).

* Klevius thinks there may well be loads of aDNA material available but not published because of unnecessary "sensitivities" and "political correctness" - and perhaps also some personal bias among key figures - not to mention the views of important sponsors.

The Denisova bracelet which Klevius has used as a main evidence since 2008 that truly intelligent humans first appeared in Asia, is now considered to be as old as 65-70,000 bp. This together with already known genetic tracks not only weakens an out of Africa scenario but makes it completely impossible.

This is how Klevius responded to Stringer in 2014:

Sunday, October 12, 2014


No, dear Chris Stringer*, Sulawesi cave hand prints can't possibly be compared with even older and much more sophisticated north Eurasian art!





The Denisova bracelet, the most sophisticated of the oldest art works ever found in the world, was discovered at the Denisova cave in Altai/Siberia in the lowermost portion of stratigraphic layer 11.1. Layer 11.2 is >50,000 bp which means the bracelet might be much older than the cautious 40,000 bp estimate.












Do note that Klevius already back then thought the bracelet was much older than 40,000 bp.

This well crafted eyed sewing needle found in the Denisova cave may be older than the bracelet.

The earliest truly modern human skull was found in Liujiang/China - and it's older than the Denisovan bracelet.

Was this a Denisovan hybrid or just a "dumb" big skulled HSS that had evolved in east Asia? Liujiang is backed up with other equally old modern teeth etc. from China/SE Asia. Needless to say Liujiang plays in a division not even remotely seen among Sub-Sahara African fossils. Btw, isn't it racist to think that modern Africans need the "pride" of living in "the cradle of humans".Klevius, like all other non-Africans and non-Altaians seem to do well despite having fallen from the "cradle".

The Liujiang skull SE China is very modern and has an endocranial capacity of 1567 cc. Its lowest possible date is ca 70,000 bp but more likely 110,000-140,000 bp and possibly more than 155,000 bp. Just a few years ago this skull was almost completely neglected despite being known of for long.

2015 Klevius took a copy of Wikipedia's info about the Liujiang skull:

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) from Wikipedia about this extremely important skull.

Peter Klevius is the only one (prove me wrong!) who can show an uninterrupted and published string of analysis that best fits published results from anthropology, archeology and genetics.

Klevius is extremely sorry and embarrassed about having to "boast" but what would be the alternative? Neglect of possibly important info to the global science etc community. And while Klevius own emotions and importance as an individual have no bearing at all in the grand scheme, what really matters is his attacks on "scientific" bias. And please do recognize that Klevius - if his theory is even close to the truth - would consequently have been considered quite dumb in the Denisova cave some 70,000 years ago, because today this intelligence has been diluted through hybridizations/gene flow etc. with less intelligent homos in its spread over the world - leaving the Siberians (especially women*) with most of the background echo of the initial intelligence boost. So ironically, a similar but reversed hybridization/gene flow process made modern humans regress from its peak intelligence in Siberia/Altai region. This explains both the sudden jump in sofistication as well as the extremely slow progress of technology before the introduction of automation.

So please Mr Hawking, AI machines have already taken over the world culture and we are trying to adapt to it. Moreover, there's no return, so stop blabbing and get back into your black hole. Peter Klevius wrote down these thoughts already in the late 1970s.

* Women used to stay at "home" unless they were robbed or married away - in which case her children would become statistically less intelligent compared to if she had made them within her home tribe. And intelligent men were likely more prone to leave their home turf than girls/women. This is why Klevius since long has advocated the view that contacts between big pastoralist men and hunter/gatherer women from the north may have resulted in many a powerful and intelligent offspring capable of making deep marks among farming etc. populations (see e.g. Why were tall men from the south dumber than tall men from the north?).



Only SE Asia offered an abundance of suitable evolutionary tropical island/mainland fluctuations (due to climate/sea level fluctuations)  that could make possible head shrinking with retained intelligence and later pumping out these genes through hybridization with mainland kins all the way up to the cold but protein and fat rich north in big skulled individuals (e.g. the so called Altai Neanderthal which differs from the European one). Moreover, it seems that this process also released an assumed previous lock against hybridization between Neanderthals and eastern HSS.

Is there a genetic difference between the Altai Denisovan and those in Iberia that could reflect the SE Asia island development? And if so, then why aren't we told?


And here are the open "secrets" that explain why Klevius himself can't take any credits from it (jump over it if you're not interested in sociology). Klevius recommend a similar "acknowledgement" for other scientists to present their bias profile.

1 Klevius was from scratch given an extraordinary brain. Thanks Mum and Dad! Or, screw you - because with a more ordinary one Klevius might have been better in melting in with the gray mass! As you dear reader know, Klevius uses to describe himself as "the extremely normal", meaning that his intelligence cowardly forces him to adapt to a changing "normality" while simultaneously trying to protect himself from precisely that depopulated no man's land of "normality". As we all know, "average Joe" is a myth.

2 Klevius was chased by the Social state and then kidnapped into grim foster care and child slavery from the age of two because the state hated a hard working single mother whose lover didn't take responsibility for his part of their child. The mother decided to send him to grandmother who just happened to get seriously ill. What then happened is still a mystery but the solicitor involved seem to, without the mother's approval, have handed the little boy over to an unrelated family who kept him in secret from authorities till he was eight, when he was finally reported and made a foster child* due to the long time that had passed since he was with his mother - who until then had no idea where he was. When Klevius as a 17 year old was kicked out from the foster home (the state stopped paying) and sent to his mother's country for  they met and could tie together many, if not all, loose ends - incl. some quite false allegations. Klevius mother was equally cowardice not to step in the dirt - which fact doesn't always fully protect against evil gossiping.

* When the only daughter in the foster home (who was already grown up when Klevius arrived) died some half a century later she seemingly out of the blue (no relations with Klevius as long as she lived) made a will where she out of her small savings included Klevius. Did she feel guilt on the behalf of her parents or did Klevius writings on the web touch her - or both? Someone knows but won't tell...  However, if the writings were involved it wasn't about islam but rather about Klevius analysis of Edith Södergran that had been published a year before her will (on Geocities and therefore now gone, but Klevius will soon dig into old archives and re-publish it for you to evaluate). However, the money she gave would have been thousand times more important when Klevius was young. She seems to have been a nice human being because she had already a long time ago when their father died, given up her part in the relatively big farm outside the capital that her brother hence took over alone. When Klevius heard about it he contacted  the brother and asked if he could arrange a small lot for Klevius to build a house on and pay back in installments with the property as security. But no, he wasn't even trying to be helpful but rather the contrary. It ended up with Klevius paying a flat rent that easily exceeded what a mortgage would have cost. Klevius was still quite young but already divorced and the only custodian of his child while working full time plus two hours commuting/day. And although the court ruled Klevius to be the sole custodian, this didn't hinder a neighbor woman from telling Klevius that "a girl should be with her mother".

As a consequence of being kicked out at 17 Klevius lost any possibility for a normal academic career (with the then rules) but had to work his ass off instead (full time day work, economy school in the evenings, and selling tickets on a sports center during the weekends - which all was easy compared to the slave work, beatings and harrasment in the foster home). This in turn opened up for intensive autodidacticism* (while commuting, eating, before bedtime etc.),  which later led to a positive encounter with Ludvig Wittgenstein's successor at Cambridge, Prof. Georg Henrik von Wright (a Finland-Swede like Klevius) which led to the article Demand for Resources in 1981, and a short book with the same name in 1992 in which Jinniushan and the idea that modern humans came out of the cold "mongoloid" north Eurasia, first appeared. These ideas were in fact just a bi-product of Klevius main interest, namely the evolution of "mind" and "consciousness" (see EMAH) which got a radically new formulation in the same book (see e.g. Klevius criticism of Habermas observation/understanding analysis). All in all, this "freestyle" use of Klevius brain capacity, paired with his cowardice fear as a non-academic not to be enough self critical gave Klevius an advantage in analytical thinking between the general and the particular.

* Peter Klevius wrote all of his more essential scientific works long before he had visited any university. And when he stupidly did so at mature age and gathered some academic "merits" in anthropology, criminology and sociology, he really came to understand that his naive teenage longing for university studies had been just that - naive and unsubstantiated. Certain specific and quantitative subjects can be successfully studied in higher education. However, general and qualitative ones can not, simply because they are wide open gates for political, religious etc. bias, hence making more neutral and intelligent research impossible. Do also note that the mean IQ for university graduates now has decreased below average IQ because way more than half of the population is involved.

3 So when in 2004 Homo floresiensis was presented it was easy for Klevius to see that the "secret" behind the relatively sudden appearance of much more intelligent modern humans, must have been caused by tropical island dwarfing genetically transfered to the big skulled northern relatives, and then back all over the planet.

This also explains the "racial" pattern of the world's population, as well as why Melanesia/Australia now have most of the Denisovan genes left while sub-Saharan Africa has the least. So for example, the archaic Sub-Saharan variant of the MUC7 spit gene package in still living Africans is so distinctive that the Neanderthal and Denisovan corresponding ones match more closely with those of modern humans outside Sub-Saharan Africa.

Klevius is genetically* a full blood Viking - but isn't at all proud** of it - nor is he ashamed either, why would he (see Origin of Vikings).

* yDNA: I-M253 DF29/S438 without subtypes. 
mtDNA: HV0 HVSI C16298T V7a1. C16298T mutation detected in aDNA obtained from human remains excavated on Gotland, dated to 2.800 -2.000 BC.

** If Klevius had been brought up in a muslim environment he wouldn't have been proud about Muhammad and his fellow looters and raiders either - nor would he have been ashamed. Why would he?

So why is it that "blacks", muslims, etc. are so tied to history when Klevius - and most of the world's population isn't? Why has Africa to be "the cradle of mankind" and warlord Mohammad's words to constitute "a great and peaceful religion".

The out of Africa myth lacks any credible  foundation when you look at the general picture revealed by science so far -  and consider the strong suppression of data that isn't aligned with the out of Africa myth at all but much easier to explain when reversed.

In 2015 Pääbo got access to search for DNA in the only sub-Saharan skull from a time when modern humans already for long had roamed Eurasia (Ust-Ishim from northern Russia is 45,000 bp and has offered a full genome). This skull from Hofmeyr S-A, and with prominent brow ridges etc, is dated (based on mud) to 36,000 bp and is morphologically unrelated to any Africans of today. Why don't we hear anything from Pääbo?!

Moreover, so called "anatomically modern humans" from (north-east) Africa (but quite archaic compared to e.g. Liujiang etc. from China) from 100-200,000 bp also indicate a completely different morphological lineage compared to the Hofmeyr skull.

The two pillars (i.e. lies) of Africa-centrists

1  'Neanderthals were like us'.

Klevius: No, they weren't at all like the modern humans from Siberia/Altai. They were truly dumb in comparison. Even Pääbo admits that they didn't show any significant sign of development during a period far longer than modern humans.

2  'Brain and intelligence doesn't matter - it was all social cooperation'.

Klevius: So why did people get so extremely social in the cold and sparsely populated Denisova cave surroundings in Siberia/Alta at the time immediately after the appearance of Denisovan?

Physically there's only one human race, i.e. the mongoloid race - all others, incl. Klevius, are "bastards" between mongoloids and more archaic forms. This is because modern humans evolved in the cold, although the new brain code came from dwarfed skulls in the warm SE Asian islands. Klevius and all other non-mongoloids are just bastard "races" resulting from the back migration of now modern humans from Siberia/Altai etc.

Most so called "Africans" used to be so called "Europeans"/"Eurasians" before they back migrated and mixed with more archaic populations (which explains African "diversity"). In fact it seems that the so called Bantu expansion (as hinted at in Klevius 1992 book in the chapter Khoi, San and Bantu) originally followed in reverse direction the same trajectories that muslim Arab slave raiders/traders have used for more than thousand years to bring slaves to Mideast. In this scheme Bantu could be seen as the spread of farming/cattle breeding, i.e. appendices to the Nilo-Saharan language family.

The "bantuization" of Africa is a grave violation of the rights of the indigenous mongoloid Africans who (possibly together with Pygmies) originally settled the continent which until then only harbored Neanderthal-like hominids.

The African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (ACHPR) has modified the definition of indigenous peoples to take out traditional references to aboriginality. This is because, as the International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA) says on its website, “it is very difficult and not very constructive to debate this in the African context.”

Across Africa, the true natives are less and less visible each year. It is not recognized as racism. Racism is the crime of white people against blacks after all, right? No. This is a form of racism as vile as, if not more vile than, any out there. This is a serious and contentious claim to make. Not least because all Africans hold themselves to be indigenous.


Acknowledgement: Klevius has a life to live so if you want better editing/updating, you better donate funds so Klevius could delegate the job to someone who masters it.

So in the meantime, please look at the general picture offered, not details.



Klevius wrote (please do note that dates are in accordance to old datings):

Saturday, March 27, 2010


Not Africa but Siberia was the hot spot of human evolution!



Cultural artifacts give 100% support for Klevius theory.  



Keep in mind that "out-of-Africa" babblers refer to pre-human genes! We are also genetically related to monkeys, fishes, grass etc, but what's the point of mentioning it all the time while confusing it with what made us truly humans, i.e. the single species we are today?! Yes, we are all out-of-Gondwanaland aren't we! Btw, due to late tectonic movements there was no African continent when the hominids evolved! Africa was part of Asia!

The Denisova cave is within the range of what reasonably might be interpreted as the mainland of M45 divergence.

Note that all the Homos that already occupied Africa/Eurasia had a low capacity brain structure as is evident from cultural comparisons. Even the barely one meter high "Homo" floresiensis (which isn't a Homo at all because of, among other reasons, its much more effective brain) with less than a third of Homo erectus brain size, used fire & tools etc!


Note what Klevius terms the grey "bastard belt" where the Northern mongoloids genetically clashed with archaic sapiens!

The continuing & unsubstantiated but politically correct babbling of Africa as the cradle of human evolution is an equally scientifically disturbing phenomenon as was Eurocentrism a Century & so ago! Yes, "Africa" or let's say the Congo river system, may have played an important role in the ape, as well as the Homo eviolution. However, humans evolved outside Africa (because Africa wasn't cold enough) & entered Africa from the North, if we are to believe genetics & physical anthropology glued together with some intelligence!

Btw, although Africa's Rift Valley etc. is an all time open superstore for anthropological finds (ask Richard Leakey - I did) the really interesting part of Africa, the Congo river, hasn't hardly been touched upon so far!

Klevius first comment on the mtDNA report from the 40,000 yr old child finger found at the Denisova cave in the Altai region of Siberia:

With the exception of Neanderthals the number and genetic relationships of other hominin lineages are unknown. However, for the first time a complete mtDNA sequence has been retrieved from a bone excavated in 2008 in Denisova Cave in the Altai Mountains in southern Siberia. It represents a hitherto unknown type of hominin mtDNA that shares a common ancestor with anatomically modern human and Neanderthal mtDNAs about 1.0 million years ago. It may appear to derive from a hominin close to that of the ancestors of Neanderthals and of modern humans. However, more probably it belongs to, or may even be the sole late ancestor lineage of us. When the new human spread from Southern Siberia to East and West they got diluted by already existing Homos so that the eastern branch kept its more mongoloid characteristics while the western branch mixed with more Caucasoid like Homos.

The stratigraphy of the cave where the bone was found suggests that the Denisova hominin lived close in time and space with Neanderthals as well as with modern humans.

This all fits well in the overall pattern of Klevius theory Out of Africa as "pygmies" and back again as "mongoloids"! This theory which is neither out of Africa nor out of Asia, is the first to unlock a rigid speciation stalemate that has made us steer at Homo's big skulls all the time instead of checking if they really did anything worth mentioning proportional to their brain size. Even before Homo floresiensis was repoted Klevius went the other way & introduced the combination of hybridization & a smaller albeit more sophisticated brain developed in a more jungle like environment among apes & was transmitted via hybridization to small ape like Homo relatives whose genes were then slowly transported to the North where they filled bigger heads in a much more challenging albeit also much more protein rich environment.





Did you know that we don't have any usable fossils from chimpanzees, only a few 500 kyr teeth found in the East African Rift Valley?!
Sally McBrearty commenting on what she thinks is some chimpanzee teeth found way outside their normal habitat: "This means we need a better explanation of why and how chimps and humans went their separate evolutionary ways. The discovery that chimps were living in semi-arid conditions as well as in the jungles seems to blow apart the simplistic idea that it was the shift to the savannah that led to humans walking upright."5

Klevius comment to Sally McBrearty's comment: Maybe it wasn't a chimp ancestor after all but rather a "chimp" descendant!

4 comments:

Anonymous said...
really where do you even get these facts! do you just make stuff up as you go along. read a book.
klevux said...
Sorry, but books are fossils! And why don't you try to check my facts you lazy anonymous one! But perhaps you're too entangled by your own preconceptions so you don't even dare to?!
Anonymous said...
@KLEVUX: BOOKS ARE FOSSILS? UR BRAIN TOO!
klevius said...
Some people believe there are still archaic (dumb) homos around. Could this be one of them? Or does s/he just pretend so stupid...



Klevius also wrote - before the discovery of the Denisovan bacelet in 2008:

Monday, March 12, 2007


South African Hofmeyr skull perfectly in line with Klevius Out of Africa as "pygmies" and back as "mongoloids" hypothesis!



Left: European 35-40,5* ky  Oase skull from southwestern Romania.

*Update: Now confirmed to be over 40,000 bp.
Right: South African 36 ky Hofmeyr skull.

Both skulls reveal archaic traits. However, non of them are associated with true Aurignacian, i.e. the Oase tools (if related) are not only "early" but also on the very limit of Aurignacian alltogether! Hence no one can today declare the Oase skull as belonging to a representative for the cultural evolution that typical Aurignacian inevitably signs. This was perhaps some of the "first archaic moderns" dispersed into Europe but has nothing to do with the real modern "mongoloids" coming from Siberia along the M173 genetic path. On the contrary their Neanderthal features (frontal flattening, large juxtamastoid eminence and exceptionally large upper molars with unusual size progression) seems to indicate less advanced capabilities which fact, together with its proposed resemblance with the Hofmeyr specimen, would fit well in the obvious lack of Aurignacian in sub-Saharan Africa at the time. It would also fit the chronological overlap with transitional forms.
To strech the conclusion that the Hofmeyr skull represents something even remotely resembling truly Aurignacian moderns is nothing but desperate. There seems to be a desperate (racist?) need for someone to rob the Khoisan people from their status as the first really modern humans in Africa!
Jií Svoboda and Katalin Simán:"The date of the appearance of the typical Aurignacian, the first culture clearly related to modern humans, is unclear, but it certainly developed after 36,000 B.P. and has several dates between 35,000 and 30,000 B.P."
Klevius conclusion: The Hofmeyr skull refutes the conventional out of Africa hypothesis!
BTW, YOU DO FIND THE BEST ANTHROPOLOGY ON BLOGS, SITES, FORUMS ETC.!
The reason is simply that real (skilled) social scientists do not fit in forms made for natural scientists. Why? Because social science can never be determined like natural science (which fact opens up for the social "scientific" writings of millions of charlatans and dilettantes) and, as a consequence, the only true social science is produced outside the institutions (incl. "scientific" magazines etc). Of course there are a few exceptions to this rule, but still! Also descriptive reports like the one referred to above are to be seen as representatives of the "natural science block".



Klevius wrote:

Wednesday, November 23, 2016


The absolute impossibility* of the "out of Africa" mythology rests on the lack of modern humans in Africa at a time they were already around in EurAsia

* Not only does Africa lack any data supporting out of Africa (other than bi-pedal ape 7 million years ago), already existing data makes such a scenario impossible.

The whole concept of "Africans" is a childish, sometimes sentimental, sometimes racist, lumping cultural interpretations in fixed geographical terms.

Acknowledgement: For you poor bastards who don't have a clue about paleo-anthropology, please do note that there are a multitude of fake news sites out there trying, for example, to make you believe that modern human intelligence started as "symbolism in the Blombos cave 70-1000,000 bp" - sometimes even spiced with completely unrelated cave paintings no older than a few thousand years. There are many such examples swirling around on the web - even incl. some so called "serious" sites. Scratch the surface and you'll see Klevius is the path to follow.

Ludvig Wittgenstein (mentor of Georg Henrik von Wright, who mentored Peter Klevius):

 Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.


Homo naledi is a so far undated silent hominid found in South Africa.Mathole Motshekga, on the other hand, is a vocal representative of stupid modern humans who calls John Hawks et al, "pseudo-scientists". And although Klevius agrees that John Hawks (like many others) out of Africa talk may come close to "pseudoscience", Klevius doubts that John Hawks wants to make "Africans" subhuman. 

In reading the below do note that the conventional Homo sapiens (HS) and Homo sapiens sapiens (HSS) classification has so far no known genetic basis.


Klevius proposes a possible scenario where modern human genes from eastern Eurasia "waded" through "Neanderthal land", multiplying and continuing down to Africa, hence absorbing and diluting so called "Neanderhal" genes to a point they almost vanished (see more below). It has for long been seen as a "mystery" why the Neanderthal mixing with Homo sapiens (HS) didn't start earlier - considering that they must have often come in touch with each other. Moreover, Svante Pääbo about the genetic revelations of the Sima de los Huesos hominins: “They are consistent with a rather early divergence of 550,000 to 750,000 years ago of the modern human lineage from archaic humans.” However, this problem is easily solved with Peter Klevius theory which states (see below) that the key to a "re-mixing" came from Denisovans who had been stuck in island SE Asia where they still possessed hybridization capabilities from before the Neanderthal-Denisovan split. So, together with a smaller but better packed brain (jungle/island dwarfing) some Denisovans left their island isolation during a time of low sea level (iceage) and started spreading towards the north where they met with their old kin (Altai Neanderthal) and hybridized in a way that also opened up for what we used to call HS and HSS and the hybridization with other "Neanderthals".

The Denisovan population shows a drastic genetic decline relative to old genetic markers found in modern human populations. Do note mongoloid San as the least effected during the decline. This is in line with Peter Klevius theory which states that Denisovan genes started from SE Asia, and became diluted away after hybridizing produced the modern human in northern Eurasia who then flooded the world without fully erasing the furthermost ones. Do also note the additional effect of much later Austronesian colonizers who interbred with aboriginal women high in Denisovan genes (mtDNA), thereby spreading them farther out. 

HS has been used in physical anthropology (pre-genetics) to describe intermediate forms close to modern human appearance yet still visibly archaic. In this categorization HSS was supposed (based on available datings) to have appeared quite recently (~40,000 bp). However, due to shortcomings in dating technology and spiced with prejudice and ignorance, many Eurasian fossils (especially from the east) have been wrongly assessed. So for example was the Liujiang skull (mentioned below) thought to have been only between 10,000-30,000 bp - much because its modern look didn't fit in prevailing ideas. Today, however, we know that Liujiang can't be younger than 68,000 bp and most likely between 100,000-130,000 bp with some additional suggestions of more than 155,000 bp. All of these new dates puncture the whole idea of HS/HSS and out of Africa. Moreover, Liujiang is far from alone in SE Asia.


Acknowledgement

Peter Klevius: The biggest challenge for a paleo-anthropologist is to avoid cultural (incl. political and religious) interpretations. Although you may or may not have some cultural connections with your children, parents, other close persons etc., what's 100% certain is that you have no whatsoever cultural connection with individuals or groups tens of thousands of years ago.

Talking about culture, as Klevius has been informed that muslims are easily offended, he hereby calls for muslim "Africans" to comfort themselves (for not being "the original") with the fact that no matter how you look, Klevius would never feel knowing anything about your intelligence, because of the enormous mixing of genes that has been going on. Moreover, if Klevius would dislike or despise people with less intelligence than himself, he would never be able to believe in Human Rights equality - nor could he have treated children as well as he has.

The reality of human evolution is quite different from the pathetic homogeneous "out of Africa" mythology, which clearly seems to rest on some sort of racism based on any particularity of being "African"*. However, if you're a sharia muslim who opposes basic Human Rights equality, then that would hint to Klevius that you either aren't very bright or that you are a deliberate racist and sexist.

* The only time Peter Klevius has considered himself a proud "European" is when he criticizes Europeanism (see e.g. Klevius critical European profile on his web site museum - not touched upon since more than a decade ago).

Klevius 2012 maps on human evolution







Liujiang (SE China 68,000-155,000 bp) compared to a later Chinese paleo skull.

The Upper Cave 102 skull was found at the same location as much more archaic looking skulls from the same period.


Klevius: Do note that Liujiang in SE China is much older (see below) than UC 102 in NE China. UC 102 may possess both pre- and postmortem deformations.

Eurasia fossils show a diverse morphological picture. Klevius therefore tries to trace the most modern ones.


Peter Brown: Parts of three human skeletons were excavated from the Upper Cave and one of these, UC102 referred to as the “Melanesian woman” by Weidenreich, as been argued to be artificially deformed (Brothwell 1975). However, the UC102 skeleton was lost at the same time as the Zhoukoudian H. erectus (Peking Man) fossils in 1941 and the original specimen is now only known from a plaster replica. Both the replica and original description by Weidenreich (1939) indicates that the UC102 cranium was broken and somewhat distorted postmortem. This complicates any anatomical assessment of the cranium, but as Donald Brothwell correctly indicated, the shape and proportions of the major cranial vault bones are consistent with cranial deformation. The cranium of Upper Cave 102 (UC102) is nearly complete but has severe post mortem damage. This has left the skull with a number of long and quite broad cracks running transversely across the parietal and occipital regions and the cranium as a whole is somewhat twisted to the right. The skull can be compared to the other well-preserved “female” cranium found at the site (Upper Cave 103), which does not share UC102's unusual morphology. Morphologically, the unusual features of UC102 include the lengthening and flattening of the frontal bone, with a marked flattening in the posterior two-thirds of the bone, and great cranial height. There is also a series of depressions on either side of the mid-line on the frontal bone, however, there is no evidence of a prebregmatic eminence. While the age of UC102 will always remain uncertain (10-29 ka BP) the evidence indicates that it was deformed during infancy and may be the earliest recorded evidence of this type of behavior.

Deborah L.Cunningham, Daniel J. Wescott (2002): Since there is disagreement over the sex of Upper Cave 102, this specimen is treated alternately as a female and as a male. Results show that the Upper Cave specimens exhibit significantly more variation than do individuals within more recent human populations, especially if UC102 is considered male. Furthermore, results indicate that the fossils never fall into the same modern human group, and that each specimen is significantly atypical of its nearest modern neighbor in multivariate space. We conclude that the three Upper Cave crania do not represent a family group but are representative of the larger contemporaneous heterogeneous Asian Pleistocene population. Our results support the contention that today’s within-group homogeneity is a relatively recent phenomenon, and is likely the result of a Neolithic population expansion and its many effects.


Tam Pa Ling (Laos)



The Tam Pa Ling fossil from Laos is now estimated to be between 46,000 and 63,000 years old and has clear implications for modern human origins.

Laura Shackelfor: "It supports an Out-of-Africa model for modern human origins and not a multiregional hypothesis because the anatomy is clearly modern and without features that are typical of local, archaic populations. Given its early date, it also suggests that the migration out of Africa occurred relatively quickly — genetic data indicates that the earliest migration of modern humans into Southeast Asia occurred at least 60,000 years ago."

Peter Klevius: Quite the opposite. It proves the out of Africa story as completely flawed. Do note "the anatomy is clearly modern and without features that are typical of local, archaic populations" and "it also suggests that the migration out of Africa occurred relatively quickly". It took "Homo idaltu" (see below) some 100,000 years to manage from the edge of NE Africa to enter Sinai or the Arabian penisula, while we are made to believe truly modern humans would have done the trip from Africa to eastern China in no time at all. It's a little bit like the belief in "Neanderthals" developing and staying just outside Africa, never to return from Israel to Egypt.


Timeline of Peter Klevius theory on human evolution:


1992: Cold adapted mongoloid features pointed to the fat and protein rich, albeit also challenging, cold north as a propellant for human evolution. The puzzling Khoisan (no cold adaptation needed in southern Africa) and Jinniushan (northern China "mongoloid" early archaic sapiens) pattern combined with the lack of mongoloid features in Australia seemed to support this view.

2003 (first time on the web): Ice age and inter glacial variations may have forced developed genes back and forth through central Asian passes, hence speeding up and/or spreading evolution of what became modern humans.

2004: The discovery of Homo floresiensis put focus on isceage island/main land fluctuations in island south east Asia with the additional effects of dwarfing which resulted in better packed, albeit really small skulls.

2010: The Denisova bracelet and the Denisovan genome contributed the final clues in the theory, linking the new brain to big skulled "neanderthal" relatives and HS.

To this one may add that the 50,000 bp sewing needle found in Altai, fits extremely well in Pääbo's et al genetic analysis that places the mixing with the Altai "Neanderthal" and Denisovan not far ahead of it on the time scale.

An important implication of the theory is that although this relatively sudden "jump" in intelligence (first in small brained SE Asians and later in Siberia/Altai big brained HSS via Altai "Neanderthal") was the starting point for the spread of what we call the truly modern human, it later became progressively diluted because of:

1 Not every child from hybridized HSS tribes got it in the first place, and

2 when HSS spred around and multiplied, it now possessed the capability to hybridize with more archaic homos with due dilution as a consequence - especially

3 where human societies multiplied with less demand for intelligence (compare cattle breeding/farming etc. in favorable environments.

As a consequence of this pattern the sparsely populated north got and kept a richer mix (every third to tenth child - your guess is as good as mine) of this new intelligence, mainly among smaller cold adapted individuals. However, later on there was a selection based on sex segregation, when big (compare Kurgan people) males from the Russian steppe started raiding the north for women. This development, in turn, resulted in some of their kids becoming both big and intelligent in a time when size still really mattered. It's among these people we may locate the sources for the repeated conquests of the southern more populous areas. This may include the spread of Indo-Aryans, Tocharians, Seima-Turbino, the "sea people", Celts, Goths and Vikings. And the reason why Klevius keeps emphasizing "Finland-Swedes" as the latest in this development is precisely because Klevius is a Finland-Swede (i.e. a bilingual Finn with old Swedish as his mother tongue) and therefore has experienced a linguistic and cultural milieu involving Sami, old Nordic, Finnish and Karelian (now Russia).

Moreover, by looking at historical maps and migration patterns as well as history itself, it's easy to see how the proto-Uralic/Indo-European (bilingual) borderline zone has moved north west from its Russian mainland. As explained in Klevius Origin of the Vikings (since 2006 on the web) the Finnish epos Kalevala gives a good basis for this line of thought.

Fennoscandia (area 1.2 million km2) is located in a changing climate zone (e.g. Gulf stream) that has been in varying degree sparsely populated but with contact zones both to the northern hunter gatherers as well as the farmers and raiders in the more southern parts of the peninsula. Do note that it was the bilingual contacts that made Finland-Swedish Vikings so successful both in the east (northern Russia was Finnish) and the west (old Nordic became spoken all the way to Iceland - incl. big parts of Britain were Old Nordic already existed).


The "sudden jump" in technology and genetic profile intimately follows the "4-species" (incl. X) hybridization events we now know about from genomes found in the Denisova cave.


50,000 bp sewing needle found in the Denisova cave, Altai/Siberia



Do note that 40,000 bp for the Denisova stone bracelet is a conservative estimate.

The "jump" in sophistication ~45-50,000 bp (compare e.g. 50,000 bp sewing needle and more than 40,000 bp stone bracelet in the Denisova cave in Altai followed by "lion man", sculpted portraits plus cave art from western Europe to later Sulawesi etc. finds) is so great and evolutionary sudden compared to previous human ancestors that it calls for an explanation that is impossible to find within the African continent. Africa lacks paleo DNA as well as modern skulls older than ~30,000 bp (Hofmeyr skull shows archaic features and its dating is unsure and no more than 36,000 bp - probably much younger). Africa also lacks the level of art of the crucial period. This has to be considered against the background of the Denisovan and the so called Altai Neanderthal genomes, as well as the existence of a 55,000 bp modern looking very small (1,100 cc) skull cap in Israel (Manot) and a much older fully modern looking big (1,567 cc) skull from Liujiang on the east coast of southern China, dated to at least 70,000 bp but more likely much older - incl. suggestions of more than 155,000 bp which would make it contemporary with the much more archaic looking Idaltu skull (1,450 cc) which has been baptized Homo idaltu although it lacks any credibilty for this - even out of Africa fantast Chris Stringer criticized the move.

Theories have to be built on existing data theoretically sewn together in a possible way. Africa is impossible not only with existing data but what we already have excludes it entirely - except for if you insist on simply naming bi-pedalism human.

However, starting with Klevius cold adaptation theory (in Demand for Resources 1992, ISBN 9173288411), and continuing with his pre-floresiensis "better wrinkled brain" theory on the web (Out of Africa as pygmies and back as global mongoloids, 2003 and floresiensis updated to 2006 - thereafter no changes to the page which is part of Klevius "web museum"), and 2010 Denisova connection as originating in island/mainland fluctuating SE Asia causing the "better packed brain" which later encountered the so called "Altai Neanderthal", a pattern emerges that fits known data so far. And according to this line of thought, it's only bi-pedalism that evolved in Africa in the form of something like the 7 million year old Sahelanthropus tchadensis ape. All other stages are the result of repeated island/mainland fluctuations and due "mongolizing" explorations to the north (compare Klevius example of the remarkable Jinniushan skull in his 1992 book).

For out of Africa fanatics old divergences between African populations constitute a mirage created by admixture between incoming modern humans and archaic paleo-africans. Always keep in mind that at all stages in hominine evolution there has been repeated north-south movement often triggered by climatic changes.


Here are some "heavy" names on the theme. Although they carelessly repeat an empty "out of Africa" mantra (without defining it) please consider them in the context of Klevius theory (Klevius will later comment more specifically).


John Hawks: We have no reason to assume that other populations, such as the Denisovans, would not be mistaken for modern humans, certainly based on the fragments that have so far been unearthed. I’m very enthusiastic about Sulawesi. It may be a beautiful test of the biogeography of early Homo across its southern range. If archaic humans were effectively using coastal habitat as a dispersal corridor, we may expect that they repeatedly reached Sulawesi—by 120,000 years ago, they may even have been in continuous contact.

Or if Southeast Asia was full of human populations with high endemism, some founded by Homo erectus-like populations, then Sulawesi may have been home to such a population. Unlike Flores, the resource base on Sulawesi was richer and island’s size would have enabled a relatively large human population, possibly large enough to avoid the mutational meltdown possibilities of the smaller island population.


Michael F. Hammer (whom Klevius referred to already back in 2003 re. "back migration") et al (2011) found evidence for two separate peaks in the maximum-likelihood surface: (i) an older peak with an archaic split time, T0 ≈ 700 kya, a time of admixture, Ta ≈ 35 kya, and an admixture proportion, a ≈ 2%; and (ii) a more recent peak with T0 ≈ 375 kya, Ta ≈ 15 kya, and a ≈ 0.5% (Fig. 2). Although our method has little power to infer the exact admixture proportion, we can place 95% CIs on the times of divergence (125 kya < T0 < 1.5 Mya) and admixture (Ta < 70 kya) (SI Materials and Methods). Note that T0 for the more recent peak is consistent with the Biaka–Mandenka split time estimates from the two-population model.

A survey of the insertion that is diagnostic for the divergent haplotype at 4qMB179 (i.e., at position 179,598,847 in Table S3) in 502 individuals from West, East, central, and southern Africa reveals that it reaches its highest average frequency (3.6%) in Pygmy groups from west-central Africa (Fig. 4). The variant is also found at low average frequencies (0.8%) in some non-Pygmy groups from West and East Africa. An A→G mutation that marks the divergent haplotype at 18qMB60 shows a similar distribution—also reaching its highest average frequency in the Pygmy groups—although it is found at slightly lower frequencies than the variant at 4qMB179 (i.e., 1.6% vs. 3.6%, respectively). This variant is also found in some non-Pygmy groups, exhibiting similar average frequencies as the 4qMB179 variant in West Africans (0.8%), East Africans (0.8%), and southern Africans (0.5% vs. 0.0%, respectively).

Interestingly, the distribution of the G→A variant marking the divergent haplotype at 13qMB107 exhibits a somewhat different geographic distribution, reaching its highest average frequency in our sample of southern Africans (6.3%, and especially in the San at a frequency of 11.9%) rather than in central African Pygmies (average of 5.2%). However, it is important to note that its presence in our sample of central Africans is entirely limited to the Mbuti, where it has a frequency of 14.8%.

Our inference methods reject the hypothesis that the ancestral population that gave rise to AMH in Africa was genetically isolated and point to several candidate regions that may have introgressed from an archaic source(s). For example, we identified a ≈31.4-kb region within the 4qMB179 locus with highly diverged haplotypes, one of which is found at low frequency in several Pygmy groups in central Africa. We hypothesize that the unusual haplotype descends from an archaic DNA segment that entered the AMH population via admixture. The observed haplotype structure is highly unusual (P < 5 × 10−5), even when we account for recent population structure or uncertainty in the underlying recombination rate (Table S4). It is noteworthy that the two ends of the archaic haplotype correspond to recombinational hotspots in the 4qMB179 region, suggesting that an initially much longer block of archaic DNA was whittled down by frequent recombination in the hotspots.

Both inferential methods also identified the 13qMB107 locus as a likely introgression candidate; however, only ≈7 kb of the surveyed region contains SNPs that are in high LD, all of which are found at the 5′ end of the sequenced region in two San individuals. To determine whether the length of the unusual pattern of SNPs extends beyond our sequenced region at 13qMB107, we examined public full genome sequence data (25). We identified a San individual (!Gubi) who carried one copy of the unusual 13qMB107 haplotype and noted a run of heterozygous sites that extended an additional ≈7 kb to the 5′ side of our sequenced region. Like the case of 4qMB179, the two ends of the unusual haplotype correspond to recombinational hotspots, and analysis of 13qMB107 yields an estimated divergence time of ≈1 Mya and a recent introgression time (≈20 kya) (Table 1).

The geographic distribution of the introgressive variant at 18qMB60, a third candidate identified in the three-population model, is very similar to that of 4qMB179, albeit consistently found at lower frequencies. On the other hand, the distribution of the introgressive variant at 13qMB107 is distinguished from that of the other two candidate loci by its presence in the San and the southern African Xhosa, as well as in Mbuti from the Democratic Republic of Congo. Interestingly, the Mbuti represent the only population in our survey that carries the introgressive variant at all three candidate loci, despite the fact that no Mbuti were represented in our initial sequencing survey. Given that the Mbuti population is known to be relatively isolated from other Pygmy and neighboring non-Pygmy populations (26), this suggests that central Africa may have been the homeland of a now-extinct archaic form that hybridized with modern humans.

We have relied on an indirect approach to detect ancient admixture in African populations because there are no African ancient DNA sequences to make direct comparisons with our candidate loci. As proof of principle that an indirect approach can be useful, we reexamined the RRM2P4 pseudogene on the X chromosome. Using a similar approximate-likelihood methodology, it was previously posited that a divergent allele at the pseudogene introgressed from an archaic taxon in Asia (27, 28). We compared human and Neandertal RRM2P4 sequences and found that the three derived sites that define the non-African basal lineage are shared with Neandertal (Fig. S4). Thus, we verified that this unusual human sequence, which is characterized by a deep haplotype divergence and a small basal clade, is indeed shared with an archaic form. Further genome-level (i.e., multilocus) analysis will also shed light on the process of archaic admixture, which is likely to be more complicated than we have modeled. For instance, the multimodal likelihood surface in Fig. 2 suggests that gene flow among strongly subdivided populations in Africa may characterize multiple stages of human evolution in Africa.

Our results are consistent with earlier inferences supporting the role of archaic admixture in sub-Saharan Africa based on analyses of coding regions (19) and the Xp21.1 noncoding region.

The results point to relatively recent genetic exchange with an unknown archaic hominin that diverged from the ancestors of modern humans in the Lower-Middle Pleistocene and remained isolated for several hundred thousand years. Despite a fragmentary African fossil record, there are plenty of candidates for the source(s) of this introgression.

Beginning ≈700 kya, fossil evidence from many parts of Africa indicate that Homo erectus was giving way to populations with larger brains, a change that was accompanied by several structural adjustments to the skull and postcranial skeleton.

By ≈200 kya, individuals with more modern skeletal morphology begin to appear in the African record (8, 14).

Despite these signs of anatomical and behavioral innovation, hominins with a combination of archaic and modern features persist in the fossil record across sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East until after ≈35 kya.

The evidence presented here and elsewhere suggests that long-separated hominin groups exchanged genes with forms that either were in the process of evolving fully modern features, or were already fully modern in appearance.

The emerging geographic pattern of unusual variants discovered here suggests that one such introgression event may have taken place in central Africa (where there is a very poor fossil record).

Interestingly, recent studies attest to the existence of Late Stone Age human remains with archaic features in Nigeria (Iwo Eleru) and the Democratic Republic of Congo (Ishango). The observation that populations from many parts of the world, including Africa, show evidence of introgression of archaic variants (6, 16, 19) suggests that genetic exchange between morphologically divergent forms may be a common feature of human evolution. If so, hybridization may have played a key role in the de novo origin of some our uniquely human traits.


PingHsun Hsieh et al (2016): Comparisons of whole-genome sequences from ancient and contemporary samples have pointed to several instances of archaic admixture through interbreeding between the ancestors of modern non-Africans and now extinct hominids such as Neanderthals and Denisovans. One implication of these findings is that some adaptive features in contemporary humans may have entered the population via gene flow with archaic forms in Eurasia. Within Africa, fossil evidence suggests that anatomically modern humans (AMH) and various archaic forms coexisted for much of the last 200,000 yr; however, the absence of ancient DNA in Africa has limited our ability to make a direct comparison between archaic and modern human genomes. Here, we use statistical inference based on high coverage whole-genome data (greater than 60×) from contemporary African Pygmy hunter-gatherers as an alternative means to study the evolutionary history of the genus Homo. Using whole-genome simulations that consider demographic histories that include both isolation and gene flow with neighboring farming populations, our inference method rejects the hypothesis that the ancestors of AMH were genetically isolated in Africa, thus providing the first whole genome-level evidence of African archaic admixture. Our inferences also suggest a complex human evolutionary history in Africa, which involves at least a single admixture event from an unknown archaic population into the ancestors of AMH, likely within the last 30,000 yr.


PingHsun Hsieh et al. (2016): African Pygmies practicing a mobile hunter-gatherer lifestyle are phenotypically and genetically diverged from other anatomically modern humans, and they likely experienced strong selective pressures due to their unique lifestyle in the Central African rainforest. To identify genomic targets of adaptation, we sequenced the genomes of four Biaka Pygmies from the Central African Republic and jointly analyzed these data with the genome sequences of three Baka Pygmies from Cameroon and nine Yoruba famers. To account for the complex demographic history of these populations that includes both isolation and gene flow, we fit models using the joint allele frequency spectrum and validated them using independent approaches. Our two best-fit models both suggest ancient divergence between the ancestors of the farmers and Pygmies, 90,000 or 150,000 yr ago. We also find that bidirectional asymmetric gene flow is statistically better supported than a single pulse of unidirectional gene flow from farmers to Pygmies, as previously suggested. We then applied complementary statistics to scan the genome for evidence of selective sweeps and polygenic selection. We found that conventional statistical outlier approaches were biased toward identifying candidates in regions of high mutation or low recombination rate. To avoid this bias, we assigned P-values for candidates using whole-genome simulations incorporating demography and variation in both recombination and mutation rates. We found that genes and gene sets involved in muscle development, bone synthesis, immunity, reproduction, cell signaling and development, and energy metabolism are likely to be targets of positive natural selection in Western African Pygmies or their recent ancestors.


In fact, everything is missing from Africa except the very oldest traits leading back to the chimp-bipedal ape split. However, that's not us.

John Hoffecker thinks this guy and his/her pals because of bi-pedalism somehow created a "super brain community". However, no one has ever found anything supporting such a claim.

Sahelanthropus tchadensis (7 million years ago) is the oldest bi-pedal ape.


Eurasia from Europe to China was populated with bi-pedal apes at least 1.85 million years ago - probably much longer. East Africa happens to possess the world's easiest and biggest terrain for picking old hominid fossils, which fact has heavily influenced the overall picture (compare the Leakey family etc.).


"Homo sapiens idaltu" on the border between Africa and Asia could be contemporary or just slightly older than Liujiang. However, when it comes to modern features "Homo idaltu" has a lot to catch up with as you can see. Cranial capacity ~ 1,400 cc (male) compared to Liujiang's ~ 1,600 cc (female weighing 52 kg).



The 52 kg big skulled Liujiang may well be the oldest truly modern looking human ever found so far.

Liujiang died as far from Africa you can get at that level.

Homo floresiensis and the chimpanzee have similar brain size, yet quite different cranial features, which explains why Homo floresiensis managed to make tools, fire and hunt on a level comparable with those with double its brain size.

Wikipedia: An indicator of intelligence is the size of Brodmann's area 10, the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex, an area of the brain associated with higher cognition. LB1's region 10 is about the same size as that of modern humans, despite the much smaller overall size of the brain.

Notwithstanding the small brain of H. floresiensis, the discoverers have associated it with advanced behaviors. Their cave shows evidence of the use of fire for cooking, and Stegodon bones associated with the hominins have cut marks. The hominin specimens have also been associated with stone tools of the sophisticated Upper Paleolithic tradition typically associated with modern humans, who have nearly quadruple the brain volume (1,310–1,475 cm3 (79.9–90.0 cu in)) and 2.6 times greater body mass. Some of these tools were apparently used in the necessarily cooperative hunting of Stegodon by these hominids.

German Dziebel (the out-of-America guy): The divergence of African-specific clades from Eurasians is a phylogenetic fact regardless of whether we believe in out-of-Africa or into-Africa. That's the reason why people mistakenly think people originated in Africa. Under out-of-Africa, there was an Africa-only "stage" in human evolution followed by an emergence of Eurasian clades in the course of the colonization of Eurasia. Eurasian clades are further removed from a hominid ancestor of modern humans than African-specific clades.

Haploid lineages show clades (mtDNA L0, L1, L2; Y-DNA A and B) that a) are not found outside of Africa, along the putative ancient routes that humans took when they left Africa; b) are clearly more divergent than the most wide-spread African lineages (mtDNA L3 and Y-DNA E) as well as non-African ones; and c) localized within Africa. They are likely candidates for "archaic" admixture and some of them are highly concentrated among Khoisans and Pygmies.


Early mixing of northern moderns with archaic "Africans"


South African less than 36,000 bp Hofmeyr skull is younger than the 38,000 bp Nazlet Khater 2 which was found on the border between Africa and Asia.
German Dziebel (the out-of-America guy): Hofmeyr, which is a skull from extreme Sub-Saharan Africa dated to just 5,000 years younger than the onset of Upper Paleolithic outside of Africa, clustering with Eurasian Upper Paleolithic skulls and showing no special affinity with Mid-Pleistocene AMH in Africa, must be product of a migration from Eurasia to Africa. The quoted interpretation is just a feeble attempt to force it into an out-of-Africa straitjacket.

 We only need Homo sapiens in America for my model to work. If African genetic divergence comes from admixture with archaics, then the lack of archaic hominins in America explains its less divergent character compared to Africans. And as Denisovan pinkie and tooth demonstrate, fossils takes time to accrue. "Time" as in hundreds of years. This has nothing to do with the presence or absence of humans. It has something to do with population size, density and technological adaptation.

Peter Klevius: German Dziebel is right when he criticizes the out of Africa direction. However, Klevius sees no need to go farther than Altai when you consider:

1 The existence of cold adapted mongoloid features among the oldest populations in South Africa (Khoisan), South Asia (Shompen) and America.

2  Denisovan genes can't have met with "Altai Neanderthal" genes in America.

3  There's no similar "art and tech track" in America.

just to mention a few 





                            Native African with the oldest L0 haplotype



To clean out unnecessary ballast bias you better get rid of cultural interpretation of human evolution.


We have no clue about L0 "Eve's" home address. Just because Khoisan people with  mongoloid features now happen to live in Africa doesn't mean that their genes are from there - other than for bi-pedalism millions of years ago.


If we by 'modern humans' mean something different from Neanderthals, erectus, etc. Mousterian-like cultures, then the picture is clearly focused outside Africa. And if we look at the timeline of modern physical traits, they clearly indicate an eastern origin.

Africa lacks any finds of truly modern human skulls at a time when they had already for long been around outside Africa. Liujiang in China is a big (1567cc) and very modern looking skull that outdates anything even close from Africa. Add to this a variety of teeth etc. from East Asia that predate anything from Africa.



The 55,000 bp Manot skull cap from Israel is very small (1,100cc) and that's the closest we can come to Africa. Yet it is more archaic than the much older Liujiang. Does it signal an archaic Pygmy/Khoisan/Negrito back migration?

These two examples fit well in Klevius theory that physiologically modern human looking hominins roamed the world, starting from East Asia,and then getting an IQ boost from Denisovan hybridization.


However, these two examples (Manot and Liujiang) aren't connected to anything new when it comes to sophistication of technology, although that "jump" must have happened shortly before the Denisova sewing needle (50,000 bp) in Altai/Siberia.



Liujiang HSS, 1567cc, est. 70,000 bp to more than 150,000 bp. Even the lowest possible estimate is far earlier than anything similar in Africa, Mideast or Europe.

Do consider the multitude of techniques in use to blur the physical HSS definition. However, this skull can't be confused with anything from Africa before 70,000 bp.

The Liujiang skull most probably came from sediment dating to 111,000 to 139,000 bp but there is a small chance that it came either from a deposit dating from around 68 000 bp or from one dating to more than 153 000 bp. However, even the loweat est. combined with its very modern shape and size would even then make it the first of its kind.

Early modern human settlement of Europe north of the Alps occurred 43,500 years ago in a cold steppe climate - and 3,500 years earlier than in Mideast.

Some 37,000-42,000 bp Neanderthals in Romania/Europe are supposed to have disappeared. Oase 1 is within the Aurignacian cultural tradition, which was the first wave of modern humans in Europe est. 45,000-35,000 bp. Compare this to the 45,000 bp modern HSS at Ust-ishim in western Siberia, of whom we have a full DNA.

For comparison, Mladeč 1, an early Upper Paleolithic skull from the Czech Republic, dating to around 36,000 bp compared to Manot 1 from Mideast 55,000 bp cranial capacity 1100 cc.

John Hawks: The morphology of the skull is very comparable to those that come from the early Upper Paleolithic of Europe. Its parietal bones bulge outward and upward into distinct bosses, which place its maximum breadth relatively high on the parietal bones, not at the midpoint of the skull as in Neandertals. But like many early Upper Paleolithic crania, it has Neandertal-like features. In the case of Manot 1, the occipital bone projects backward into a bun-like structure and there is a slight erosion of the surface of bone at the cranial rear called a suprainiac fossa.


Oase 2 Romania, 40,000 bp compared with Liujiang and UC 102.

Oase 1 from the same site and time as Oase 2, was clearly human but had some 5 to 11 percent of his genome originated from Neanderthals. This individual's Neanderthal ancestry was more recent than that of any modern human tested previously. Some half of its chromosome 12 sequence coincided with Neanderthals rather than modern humans and it had a Neanderthal ancestor within the past four to six generations, pointing to later than anticipated admixture between Neanderthals and the modern human population to which Oase 1 belonged.

The 55,000bp 1,100cc Manot skull from Israel is the closest to Africa you can get with a modern looking, albeit very small, individual. And do note that this skull is definitely much younger than the Chinese Liujiang.



Tampa Ling (Laos) skull (TPL1) and jaw (TPL2) est. 46,000-63,000 bp.


Recent discoveries in Laos, a modern human cranium (TPL1) from Tam Pa Ling‘s cave, provided the first evidence for the presence of early modern humans in mainland Southeast Asia by 63-46 ka. In the current study, a complete human mandible representing a second individual, TPL 2, is described using discrete traits and geometric morphometrics with an emphasis on determining its population affinity. The TPL2 mandible has a chin and other discrete traits consistent with early modern humans, but it retains a robust lateral corpus and internal corporal morphology typical of archaic humans across the Old World. The mosaic morphology of TPL2 and the fully modern human morphology of TPL1 suggest that a large range of morphological variation was present in early modern human populations residing in the eastern Eurasia by MIS 3.

TPL1



 TPL2 has a significantly smaller dental arcade breadth than all modern and archaic samples, including the closely contemporaneous mandible from Tianyuan cave (64.5 mm) or any other East Asian early modern humans (66.4 ± 2.2, n = 5) [29]. The only other Homo fossils that are similarly small in bigonial breadth and dental arcade breadth at the M2 are LB1 (83.0 mm (estimated) and 55.0 mm, respectively) and LB6 (71.0 mm and 53.0 mm, respectively) from Liang Bua, Flores (Homo floresiensis).

Jaw from Tam Pa Ling in the Annamite Mountains, Laos, dating to between 46,000 and 63,000 ybp. Missing teeth mirrored by Klevius.


Niah skull, Sarawak (Malaysia) est. 39,000-45,000 bp.








Real contemporary portraits from the past support the morphological diversity mentioned above.

"Racial" distribution in accordance with Klevius' "Out of Siberia and back to Africa" theory

Mongoloids (red) and Australoids (blue) are the races most distant from each other because whereas Africa had a strong back migration of mongoloids (and "bastards" called Caucasians) Australia, due to its location, came to be less involved. This is also why the so called Caucasoid race (in a broad sense) came to populate what in Klevius terminology is called the "bastard belt" (the gray area on the map).