Steve Connor, Independent (London), September 9, 2009
The conventional view of human evolution and how early man colonised the world has been thrown into doubt by a series of stunning palaeontological discoveries suggesting that Africa was not the sole cradle of humankind. Scientists have found a handful of ancient human skulls at an archaeological site two hours from the Georgian capital, Tbilisi, that suggest a Eurasian chapter in the long evolutionary story of man.
The skulls, jawbones and fragments of limb bones suggest that our ancient human ancestors migrated out of Africa far earlier than previously thought and spent a long evolutionary interlude in Eurasia—before moving back into Africa to complete the story of man.
Experts believe fossilised bones unearthed at the medieval village of Dmanisi in the foothills of the Caucuses, and dated to about 1.8 million years ago, are the oldest indisputable remains of humans discovered outside of Africa.
But what has really excited the researchers is the discovery that these early humans (or “hominins”) are far more primitive-looking than the Homo erectus humans that were, until now, believed to be the first people to migrate out of Africa about 1 million years ago.
The Dmanisi people had brains that were about 40 per cent smaller than those of Homo erectus and they were much shorter in stature than classical H. erectus skeletons, according to Professor David Lordkipanidze, general director of the Georgia National Museum. “Before our findings, the prevailing view was that humans came out of Africa almost 1 million years ago, that they already had sophisticated stone tools, and that their body anatomy was quite advanced in terms of brain capacity and limb proportions. But what we are finding is quite different,” Professor Lordkipanidze said.
“The Dmanisi hominins are the earliest representatives of our own genus—Homo—outside Africa, and they represent the most primitive population of the species Homo erectus to date. They might be ancestral to all later Homo erectus populations, which would suggest a Eurasian origin of Homo erectus.”
Speaking at the British Science Festival in Guildford, where he gave the British Council lecture, Professor Lordkipanidze raised the prospect that Homo erectus may have evolved in Eurasia from the more primitive-looking Dmanisi population and then migrated back to Africa to eventually give rise to our own species, Homo sapiens—modern man.
“The question is whether Homo erectus originated in Africa or Eurasia, and if in Eurasia, did we have vice-versa migration? This idea looked very stupid a few years ago, but today it seems not so stupid,” he told the festival.
The scientists have discovered a total of five skulls and a solitary jawbone. It is clear that they had relatively small brains, almost a third of the size of modern humans. “They are quite small. Their lower limbs are very human and their upper limbs are still quite archaic and they had very primitive stone tools,” Professor Lordkipanidze said. “Their brain capacity is about 600 cubic centimetres. The prevailing view before this discovery was that the humans who first left Africa had a brain size of about 1,000 cubic centimetres.”
The only human fossil to predate the Dmanisi specimens are of an archaic species Homo habilis, or “handy man”, found only in Africa, which used simple stone tools and lived between about 2.5 million and 1.6 million years ago.
“I’d have to say, if we’d found the Dmanisi fossils 40 years ago, they would have been classified as Homo habilis because of the small brain size. Their brow ridges are not as thick as classical Homo erectus, but their teeth are more H. erectus like,” Professor Lordkipanidze said. “All these finds show that the ancestors of these people were much more primitive than we thought. I don’t think that we were so lucky as to have found the first travellers out of Africa. Georgia is the cradle of the first Europeans, I would say,” he told the meeting.
“What we learnt from the Dmanisi fossils is that they are quite small—between 1.44 metres to 1.5 metres tall. What is interesting is that their lower limbs, their tibia bones, are very human-like so it seems they were very good runners,” he said.
He added: “In regards to the question of which came first, enlarged brain size or bipedalism, maybe indirectly this information calls us to think that body anatomy was more important than brain size. While the Dmanisi people were almost modern in their body proportions, and were highly efficient walkers and runners, their arms moved in a different way, and their brains were tiny compared to ours.
“Nevertheless, they were sophisticated tool makers with high social and cognitive skills,” he told the science festival, which is run by the British Science Association.
One of the five skulls is of a person who lost all his or her teeth during their lifetime but had still survived for many years despite being completely toothless. This suggests some kind of social organisation based on mutual care, Professor Lordkipanidze said.
Original article
(Posted on September 9, 2009)
Comments
Or isn’t it possible that Africans evolved in Africa and Eurasians evolved in Euroasia? And that perhaps the Euroasians then migrated east into the Orient and west into Europe to become the modern day Chinese, Germans, Eskimos, etc.? Blacks are so physically different from either whites or asians, and so much more primitive looking, yet scientists are hell bent on proving that somehow we either all came out of Africa OR left Africa and then came back! And we went back to do what…devolve?
This fits in very nicely with the book “Erectus Walks Among Us” by Richard Fuerle. I am not surprised by this at all, after having read that book - but I am delighted that this evidence has come to light.
Mr. Fuerle, maybe you should update your book to include this evidence.
Actually, the human race appeared about a million years ago in Central Asia. The first humans were twins, male and female, born to primates. The human race suddenly appeared. There are no missing links. The start of the human race occurred when these twins of higher intelligence than their parents ran away from their less intelligent relatives. The present Eskimos are the descendents of these two twins. These first humans roamed this planet for 5 hundred thousand years until the six colored races were suddenly born to a couple in the highlands of India. The six colored races were yellow, blue, red (the primary colors possessed higher genes) the other three colored races being orange, green, and indigo/black (secondary colors possessing of lower genes). Eventually, the same color races mated with each other and then migrated out of India for within each color race were born males and females. The yellow race possesed the Asia continent after chasing the red man out. The red man migrated to North American by the Bering Strait about a 100,000 thousand years ago. Trialing behind were some the green and orange race which continued on to Central and South America. The blue race occupied present day Europe. And the black race migrated to Africa and because of the less demanding environment slowly regressed until the white man appeared and took them in large numbers as slaves to other areas. Slavery was a common and normal occurrence in the evolution of early man.
The blue race (of superior genes) was primarily absorbed by Adam and Eve descendents (Adamites)(an extraterrestrial race possessing extremely advanced genes and with fair complexion, eyes (blue), and hair (brown, yellow, red) creating the present day white race. The Adamites migrated out of the Middle East (the craddle of civilization) into Europe. At one time Denmark was their capital. Because of these superior genes, this is the primarily reason why the white race (primarily of the Adamites and blue race) appear physically so different from the other races and in intelligence. Most of the technological advances on this planet have come from the white race. The Aryans (India) and ancient Greeks had a high degree of Adam and Eve genes in them but these genes were eventually submerged by interbreeding with inferior genes.
What these “experts” are doing is postulating and fantasying from local physical findings. But this type of activity is very limited in obtaining the truth. Unfortunately, the rest of society especially the ones in power then starts making policies and laws based on these inaccurate hypotheses for the rest of us to obey. The black race is the most regressive and to see otherwise has been very wasteful and disruptive.
‘The skulls, jawbones and fragments of limb bones suggest that our ancient human ancestors migrated out of Africa far earlier than previously thought and spent a long evolutionary interlude in Eurasia—before moving back into Africa to complete the story of man.’
Is this science?
You find some bones in Europe that predate the African discoveries and instead of examining the possibility that man began in Europe earlier you automatically change your theories to say that man began in Africa earlier than once thought, left, went to Europe and then went back??
What are they teaching at University these days?
Mr. Taylor reviewed the book “Erectus walks Amongst Us” and was a little dismissive of the “Out of Asia” theory.
Perhaps a second look?
Duh!
Hey, all readers, “science” is a super-PC field. I’m sure most of you know that, just alerting the youngsters.
Didn’t used to be that way; search for some old books. You’ll be amazed at the conclusions “scientists” came to about race etc. back before communism won.
Seek out & read those old books!
Why do they cling to the Out of Africa theory - for that is all it is.
Only recently scientists have speculated that the chinese are a seperate race of humans. Therfore why not Europeans and blacks.
Brain size seems to be a major factor in evolution and yet the present difference in brain size (and IQ) between europeans/asians and blacks is overlooked.
All human races outside of Africa have evolved. Perhaps it is true that Africans are a seperate race which has evolved on its own after pre humans left africa. For example why did the most sucessfull race in terms of longevity, the Neanderthal, not exist in Africa but Europe?
Here’s a big surprise. It isn’t even given the last page of the paper let alone national news. When political correctness over rides science, we are really in trouble.
Everything is eventually found to come from central Eurasia, it seems. So why not look there first?
The whole out of Detroit(Africa) theory is a lie. More fiction to make the huddled masses believe we are one big brotherhood. One big brotherhood in the eyes of the Liberal Marxists; white man pays taxes and blacks / hispanics take taxes. Civilisation came out of Mesopotamia not the dark continent. Surely if civilisation came out of Dr. Leakey’s theory then wouldn’t there be civilisations in existence in Africa today? The only civilisations I see in Bantu dominanted Africa is the remnanats of once great white colonies.
Let’s see if I have this straight — humankind originated in Africa, left for Georgia, then for some reason returned to Africa, just in time to evolve into blacks?
Am I the only one who thinks that someone’s getting desperate to protect the “out-of-Africa” theory at all costs?
Couldn’t help but notice that the author still clings to the fallacy of the “African origin” theory.
Obviously it is just as correct in view of the latest scientific finds to say that some humans might never have developed in Africa at all.
This theory is called multi-regionalism and when all the current evidence is noted, then it seems to be the most correct one at this point in time.
The only thing that stands in it’s way of receiving the recognition that it deserves, is the main stream media and main stream science. The “out of Africa” theory remains the most popular one, because of it’s political agenda in implying that we are all the same. It promotes multiculturalism and this is the only reason why the MSM acknowledges this theory as the only truth, something which it obviously isn’t.
It is science but politically correct, or politically adjusted science.
Science with a political agenda.
Nick the Aussie,
Harrapan civilisation (India) and possibly southern Europe might predate the Middle East.
So… how many hundreds of thousands of years of distinct genetic heritage do whites possess? Perhaps we’ve always been separate from blacks, excluding some tiny degree of mixing.
Either I read it wrong or people are reading it wrong.
What the article is saying that these are the oldest bones outside of Africa, but Lucie is still the oldest bones to date (which are from Africa)
Africans are more diverse genetically its a fact that they are an older species.
Euro’s and asians share a lot of genetic markers, and many euros came from eurasia. Haplogroup R1a R1b (google, national geographic, yahoo, etc it).
These are all facts.
The question is the people with less diversity means newer evolution…………. Hence advanced societies in Asia and …… Europe. Also which includes physical features.
There is much to learn, and remember right or left mans opinion is just opinion. Nature and logic stand firm in its laws only man can pervert it.
Georgia is in Caucusus. We [whitey] are called “caucasians”! Here is evidence why? The more discoveries they make like this just shake things up in an unanticipated way. And only more will come too. Science/anthropology is a constantly evolving field and we cannot get locked into the “ONLY out of Africa” syndrome and “we are ALL Africans inside”!! NO!!
“Didn’t used to be that way; search for some old books. You’ll be amazed at the conclusions “scientists” came to about race etc. back before communism won. Seek out & read those old books!”
That’s right, Cousin Charlie. Get ‘em before they’re all destroyed or banned.
Many/most people naively assume that “progress” is something natural and inevitable. Tain’t so! You can have progress and you can have regress. Societies can go either way. Right now, we’re in regress.
One skull “throws into doubt” the whole set of teachings of evolution.
The good professor gets a little carried away, methinks. The find is very interesting, but by no means revolutionary. There must have been countless radiations we know nothing of.
As for modern Homo, the European scientific consensus more or less follows Coon: Five recent subspecies - europid, mongolid, negrid, khoisanid and australid. (of course it is a bit more complicated :)
- I do not like the term “Caucasian”. Blumenbach coined it for a hypothetical primal race after a strict reading of Genesis (the sons of Noah dispersing after the flood). And “mongoloid” denotes Down syndrome.
I have always thought that there were three seperate developments that occured more or less simulataneously. They are going to have to find some more solid evidence before they can suppose that this group went “back to Africa.” At some point, Neanderthals will have to be accounted for as well. I would also really like to see some correlations of land and its formations during these periods. Supposedly, there was for example a land bridge to the British Isles as late as ca7,000BCE, (Gerrard Herm, The Celts).
I am not sure, however, that the stubborness of science to acknowledge these new findings enough to change previous theories is a PC or overt politically driven thing. If you study the history of science, you will find that there has always been a set of barriers to defeat before a new finding, and the theory it proposes, displaces the accepted one. More evidence, and more involved in the study will overcome the theory barriers in time, if they stand up to repeated srcutiny and questioning. That is how science works. It does not run from one conviction to another lightly. Certainly, there is a political stigma involved with race and evolution, but dna studies have already shown that whites developed last. Does it matter where they evolved as much as why? Africa was once a much more hospitable place than it is today and the British Isles were once balmy, almost tropical.
Great read, jewamongyou, thanks for the title. The book referred to is available at www.erectuswalksamongst.us . An excerpt:
Again, man alone decides whether a population is or is not distinctive enough to be classified as a different species. However, we can ask taxonomists to at least be consistent in making these decisions. That is, whatever their criteria are for labeling one population of living things as a “species” they should apply that same criteria in deciding whether another population of living things is or is not a “species.” This is clearly not the case now, as there are many “species” of birds that can interbreed but differ so slightly in coloration that only an expert can tell them apart, while the differences between the races are so great that even a 3 month old baby can tell the difference, and adults can correctly determine the race of a person 85% of the time just from his silhouette. (Davidenko, 2007). Taxonomists should not apply one criterion of speciation to animals other than man, and a different criterion to man himself.
To Paul (#4):
These must be the same “scientists” who declared “race is a social construct” and who gave Al Gore his theories on man-made global warming.
The fear based rhetoric engendered by any discussion of the Out of Africa theory is something I find truly surprising and illogical. If the theory is correct, and there is actually good science backing it up, it in no way poses any danger for a white nationalist ideology, nor does it diminish the achievements of white peoples. The essence of evolutionary science is that things change with time, so just because we were the same a million years ago does not mean we are the same now.
“Is this science?
You find some bones in Europe that predate the African discoveries and instead of examining the possibility that man began in Europe earlier you automatically change your theories to say that man began in Africa earlier than once thought, left, went to Europe and then went back??”
Yes, it is good science to take new findings and try to fit them to the old model. It is the way science works. You don’t throw out well supported theories the instant something that doesn’t quite fit is discovered, you first see if the existing theory can be modified to account for the new data.
“The skulls, jawbones and fragments of limb bones suggest that our ancient human ancestors migrated out of Africa far earlier than previously thought and spent a long evolutionary interlude in Eurasia—before moving back into Africa to complete the story of man.”
How does this refute the out of Africa theory? If anything it supports it.
K. Sear: Yes, it is good science to take new findings and try to fit them to the old model. It is the way science works. You don’t throw out well supported theories the instant something that doesn’t quite fit is discovered, you first see if the existing theory can be modified to account for the new data.
Why is anyone troubled by the idea that anatomically modern humans first evolved in Africa? We are primates, and it makes sense that we originated in an environment that so clearly favors primates. Am I less of a White man because my black-skinned ancestors left Africa 50,000 or so years ago? Some creatures and their environments are so well matched that 200,000 year old fossils show no change in the species. Our ancestors faced the ice ages and spear-armed Neanderthals, while Black’s ancestors faced year round sunny weather and leopards. We changed and they didn’t.
Recommended book. Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors, by Nicholas Wade. It’s pre-history as seen through the lens of the most recent genetic discoveries. The author has to make a few absurd comments to get past the censors, but his own stated premises put the lie to his little compromises with the multi-cults at Penguin Press. Chapter 9, “Race”, is good, but Chapter 8, “Sociality”, is fascinating.
while determining the evolution of man is an interesting case, i’m interested in the case of where we are headed….homo mulato.
“…Brain size seems to be a major factor in evolution and yet the present difference in brain size (and IQ) between europeans/asians and blacks is overlooked…”
Geoff:
I don’t believe there is a scientist alive that doesn’t know that brain sizes and IQ differ between the races. Sam Francis continued to challenge that idiot Stephen Jay Gould with hard science up until the day he died—Gould admitted nothing, but started omitting some of his more ridiculous theories from his later writings (before he too died). Of course, Gould’s specious theories became mainstream and to question him was heresy:
Steve Sailer writes this about Gould:
“…Raised by his father as a Marxist, Gould hated the possibility that evolution had shaped human nature beyond the powers of social engineers to alter. He especially loathed the concept that humans varied genetically….”
http://tinyurl.com/nuwppg
His book “The Mismeasure of Man” became the prevailing wisdom—all others theories were starved of funds. Gould’s favorite tactic was character assassination.
The data are not overlooked, they’re suppressed lest one risk his career and find himself in front of an Inquisition as did Galileo. There is a high price to be paid for not toeing the current PC party line—loss of grant money, scorn from your peers (who know better but will not support you), isolation and ridicule and finally obscurity.
Imagine having to state publicly that the Earth is Flat or the Universe Revolves around the Earth over and over even though all the empirical evidence points to the exact opposite. This is what some of these scientists have had to face, especially when dealing with differences in intelligence between the races.
Bon
“[Gould’s] book “The Mismeasure of Man” became the prevailing wisdom — all others theories were starved of funds. Gould’s favorite tactic was character assassination.”
“Sam Francis continued to challenge that idiot Stephen Jay Gould with hard science up until the day he died — Gould admitted nothing, but started omitting some of his more ridiculous theories from his later writings (before he too died). Of course, Gould’s specious theories became mainstream and to question him was heresy.”
27 — just a thought wrote:
Where we are heading seems to aim at the reversal of tens of thousands of years of evolution and the re-merging of the races into one indistinguishable blob.
However, it must be said that this design does not apply to ALL of humanity — just to the white race, wherever it is found. The Chinese, for instance, will still remain Chinese — undiluted and un-Africanized, while whites as a distinct group will vanish from the earth, absorbed into a universal brown mass.
All this talk is nothing more than intellectual posturing. The truth is no one knows where we come from and no one ever will. We should concentrate on what we are now and where we are going.
To Schoolteacher:
Just because there are primates in Africa doesn’t mean that human evolved solely in Africa, because that continent is an “environment favoring primates.”
There are primates in Asia and South America as well.
I believe, that instead of everyone moving out of Africa in mass global migrations, that there were simultaneous hominid evolutions all over the Earth, in Asia, Europe, the Americas and Australia. Looking at the huge populations in India and China, I cannot believe that the ancestors of these people emigrated from Africa. Nor do I believe that the European hominids developed, emigrated from and then moved back to Africa.
Look at other non-human species - do you believe than dinosaurs and prehistoric mammals, birds and other life forms originated in one land mass and then spread out to other land masses across Earth? I, for one, don’t.
32 Soprano Fan: The usual definition of a species is that members of the same species can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. If the different races had evolved simultaneously from different populations of pre-humans scattered across the globe, we would not be one species. Blacks and Whites would be as genetically different as horses and donkeys. But since Mulattos can have children, Blacks and Whites are the same species and must share common ancestors from the not too distant past. I’m not a paleoanthropologist and so I can’t prove or disprove it, but from what I’ve read, the people who evolved into the White and Yellow races left Africa between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago. We’ve been evolving separately since then. If 50,000 years doesn’t seem like enough time for Blacks to evolve into Whites, consider how different American Indians look from the Orientals of northeast Asia that they are descended from.
‘…Odd. I wonder why Stephen Jay Gould was blessed and considered mainstream, while Sam Francis was reviled and considered a heretic…”
Because Gould was a Marxist, which was (and is) the prevailing unquestioned dogma in academia, the media and the government. Therefore his books (as reported by Arthur Jensen):
“…[were] translated into ten languages, and became required reading for undergraduate and even graduate classes…”
http://tinyurl.com/c64xgj
Boasian anthropology was at the time the prevailing wisdom in university anthropology departments (Gould was at Harvard).
Boas used social science to further a leftist, anti-Darwinian political agenda. He believed people have the same biological potential for accomplishment and no culture is better than any other.
This fits nicely with Marxist theory (as defined by Professor McDonald):
“…We Marxists can create a classless society in which there will be no conflicts of interest and people will altruistically work for the common good…”
As for researchers who dare to deviate:
“… former Attorney-General of Ontario, Ian Scott, ordered a lengthy police investigation of the U. of Western Ontario psychologist Jean-Philippe Rushton. His supposed crime? Publishing a Darwinian theory of the causes of human biodiversity. And others, such as biologist Edward O. Wilson and psychologist Arthur Jensen, have been the victims of assault, threat, firing, censorship, character assassination, and non-stop harassment…”
Steve Sailer reports:
“…One scientist [presumably the great Arthur Jensen] had to be accompanied by an armed guard on his own campus, as well as guarded in his own home. Another scientist was required by his university to teach his classes by closed circuit television, supposedly in order to prevent a riot breaking out in his class. Several scientists had university and other speaking engagements canceled or interrupted by gangs of students or outside toughs…”
http://tinyurl.com/r3tfev
Such as it is in the modern world. Hopefully, as Galileo was vindicated, the truth about racial IQ differences, brain sizes and Darwinian theory will prevail as the evidence mounts and it becomes more and more difficult to declare that The Earth is Flat or is the Center of the Universe, Diversity is Our Greatest Strength, We are All The Same, IQ is Meaningless or Whites are the Scourge of the Earth.
In time, the theories of Boas, Marx, Gould and others of their ilk will be held up to the ridicule they deserve and Professors Rushton, Lynn, Murray, Herrnstein and McDonald will be vindicated and deservedly honored.
E pur si muove
Bon
To Schoolteacher:
I know what the definition of species is, and I know that the different races can and do interbreed. Different species among other life forms likewise interbreed - wolves (Canis lupus) can breed with domestic dogs (Canis familiaris). I’m just saying that, given the large populations of India and China, I find it difficult to believe that their ancestors all came out of Africa.
Of course, hundreds of thousands of years ago, the continents weren’t as “spread out” as they are now. So migrations could have occurred if the continents were in closer proximity, than they are today.
35 Soprano Fan: When I was a boy, China’s population was reported to be 400 million, one third of what it is now. In the last 25 years, Ethiopia’s population has doubled, thanks to Western food aid. Given sufficient food, any fertile couple can have four fertile offspring by the time they’re 25. In another 25 years, those four can become eight, in 50 years 16, in 75 years 32, in a hundred years 64. So a population of 50 breeding pairs of humans can, given enough food, double their numbers every 25 years, to 1600 people. In a thousand years those 50 couples can spawn over 800,000 people, who in another thousand years can become 6.4 billion. Were it not for the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (War, Famine, Pestilence, & Death) keeping the numbers down, every sewer on the planet would have backed up before the pyramids were built.
From what I’ve been reading lately, the current estimate of some geneticists is that the non-African population of the world is all descended from about 5000 people. Mathematically, that’s plenty of people to populate a planet. And since Europe, Asia, and Africa are all connected by land, the distance between those continents remains zero. However, since sea level was a couple hundred feet lower tens of millennia ago, (All that water was frozen in Ice Age glaciers.) the land connection between Africa and the others was wider, and people could also cross over from Asia to the Americas on foot, so yes, there was greater mobility. Britain was connected to Europe, New Guinea was connected to Asia, and many islands, like Crete and Australia, were visible from the mainland and within reach of a determined caveman with a hollowed out log.
’m just saying that, given the large populations of India and China, I find it difficult to believe that their ancestors all came out of Africa.
Soprano Fan: it has only taken, in China’s case, for the population to almost triple, since the communists victory of 1949.
Different species among other life forms likewise interbreed - wolves (Canis lupus) can breed with domestic dogs (Canis familiaris).
It could be argued that dogs are just a race of wolves. Because they have been selectively bred over thousands of years, for characteristics that humans find pleasing, they have been bestowed with their own species name. There are of course a whole lot of physical differences now, including smaller brains than wolves, the ability to bark, and an upturned curl in the tail. But genetically, dogs, are practically indistinguishable from wolves.
This proves in fact that there can be vast intra-species differences, without the need for a great deal of genetic distance.
And changes in traits such as intelligence, and even physical traits can be selected for in a small group very quickly. For instance some have posited that the high intelligence of Askhenazi Jews is something that may have evolved only over the past thousand years or so.
Race realists do not need to prove a huge amount of genetic distance between races; in order to support the idea of substantial racial differences.
Again, returning to dogs, just think of a Pit Bull compared to a Pomeranian. Vast behavioural and physical differences - but virtually genetically identical. Genetic distance is irrelevant to proving race exists.
‘The fear based rhetoric engendered by any discussion of the Out of Africa theory is something I find truly surprising and illogical. If the theory is correct, and there is actually good science backing it up, it in no way poses any danger for a white nationalist ideology, nor does it diminish the achievements of white peoples’
I don’t think the out of africa theory causes fear-based rhetoric amongst whites. It’s just that white people have grown very wary of ‘science’ related to this subject as often these types of theories evaporate like a mirage when examined.
” it has only taken, in China’s case, for the population to almost triple, since the communists victory of 1949. ” —- John Liu
In other words, approximately the population the USA has now — just such a short time ago. Amazing to consider.
news.harvard.edu
Here’s some more news about the use of plant fibers used by early humans in Georgia in southeastern Europe. I’m surprised that an article about it was published in a Harvard publication. I read the entire article. I expected it to say that intelligent and advanced Africans travelled to Georgia to teach the sub human Whites how to turn flax into thread, string and cloth, but it appears that this article is more honest that the usual “Out of Africa” garbage spewed by White hating academic journals.
“A team of archaeologists and paleobiologists has discovered flax fibers that are more than 34,000 years old, making them the oldest fibers known to have been used by humans. The fibers, discovered during systematic excavations in a cave in the Republic of Georgia, are described in this week’s issue of Science.
The flax, which would have been collected from the wild and not farmed, could have been used to make linen and thread, the researchers say. The cloth and thread would then have been used to fashion garments for warmth, sew leather pieces, make cloths, or tie together packs that might have aided the mobility of our ancient ancestors from one camp to another.”
John Liu - “Different species among other life forms likewise interbreed - wolves (Canis lupus) can breed with domestic dogs (Canis familiaris).” ——
These “different” lifeforms can interbreed because they are of the same genus. It’s actually rare for animals of the same genus to not be able to interbreed in some fashion, not that all the offspring are viable. The common ancestor in the case of domestic dogs and wolves is… the wolf. Now sit back and start thinking about humans. It becomes a lot more clear.
Changing intelligence levels among different groups wouldn’t take as much time as some believe, even taking into account regression toward the mean. This is as long as their is a conscious effort to make sure the brightest of “each bunch” are married off to each other and sire children. Yes, this has happened with Ashkenazi Jews over the last 700 - 800 years as theorized by Weyl, possibly among the Brahmin in India, some groups in Europe and elsewhere that show a bump in intelligence when compared to the local “averages” - although the averages for the “above average” groups are sometimes exaggerated. A change in the actual “structure” of intelligence among different groups would be much harder to bring about. So in the end everyone is looking to better the traits they already have.
Population can jump very quickly among whites just as has among non-whites (much of it funded in Africa and Latin America - and now the US - by whites of course). A sudden upward swing in white births is what the Marxists, and in fact many Black, Hispanic and Asian supremacists don’t like to consider. If whites feel they are under enough hostile pressure, the birthrate would go up. Quickly. This is something that has been noted historically over and over. This is why the people in charge are still trying to keep whites comfortable as they work to destroy them. Most of the various non-white supremacists are too arrogant to imagine or believe their current situation could tip and sink. But it could, and most likely will. Situations will arise that are beyond the control of those who are in charge, those who actually lead the various non-white supremacists around by their noses, although these arrogant hypocrites are too self-deceptive to realize they are merely useful idiots. While the coming troubles are going to be very bad for everyone, their will be some amusement in seeing some of the “leaders” thinking they can actually unite all the various non-white groups, or even just a few of them, to make the final push against those stupid ol’ whites. It won’t happen. Sure, they don’t believe it will happen. That’s the arrogance that has always created and led to the collapse of marxist rule in the West. Here we are, all over again, on a larger scale.
Once things are cleaned up, one has to wonder how much real history we’ll find that has been hidden from whites for decades. How many other finds like this skull have been reburied or hidden away? For now, the marxists have the upper hand, working toward their goal of ruling over much more easily controlled populations of blacks, browns, yellows who historically have posed much less trouble to ruling factions (for various reasons) than those pesky whites who seem to go from docile for generations to seething revolutionaries over and over.
