I read a racist book published by AST. Boldly.
Richard Ferle lives on some island near New York. I didn't find how old he is. He has a bachelor's degree in mathematics, chemistry, physics, a master's degree in economics, a doctorate in law (i.e. he studied a little of everything, defended a diploma in economics, and wrote a dissertation in law), but he writes music and is engaged in anthropology. Apparently, it somehow comes easier to him.

Ferlet has his own theory of the origin of man. In short, he does not believe that a modern type of man was formed in Africa, then migrated to Europe and Asia, after which the main races were formed: Negroid, Mongoloid and white, or rather, some peoples had some features to adapt to a certain natural environment: some darkened, others turned white, others acquired epicanthus.

Ferlet believes that the formation of man proceeded differently. Primates also lived in Asia and Europe, including those from which human evolution could begin.
At first, a bipedal monkey (for example, Orio, living on the territory of modern Italy) originated from someone like a tupaya or tarsier, then Australopithecus appeared. But the trick is that they were not one, but there were several species, but at the same time they were Eurasian (related to the orangutan): universal, East Asian and West Asian, and they evolved in different ways.
Cro-Magnons descended from the universal Australopithecus (the more specialization, the worse the results for development. Versatility is the key to success) through the West Asian erectus. Neanderthals descended from West Asian Australopithecus, who later took part in the formation of the white race. European is Cro-Magnon + Neanderthal.

The Mongoloids descended from the East Asian Australopithecus through the East Asian Erectus.
And Negroids have a hybrid origin, i.e. modern Africans are a hybrid of erectus and Homo sapiens sapiens, and hybridization occurred through migrations of individual representatives of erectus and Homo sapiens sapiens from Eurasia to Africa.
While in Eurasia Australopithecus courageously evolved first into Homo habilis, then into Homo erectus, uniform outrages took place in Africa: imagine, habilis wandered there, and maybe erectus mated with chimpanzees! That's where the blacks came from! How does Furley know all this? From DNA. You can't cheat alleles!
I wonder what prevented them from mating with an orangutan in Eurasia? For some reason, it was Africa that acted so corruptingly on them. Maybe it was easier for them to find partners in Eurasia? When they still said: "Do not go erectus yv Africa for a walk"!

In general, if a European and a Mongoloid are different subspecies, then it is not known whether the Negro is a human at all. It should be added that by the Negroid race, Ferle means only the peoples living south of the Sahara. The Egyptians were white, and the native Australians are also white, but not Homo sapiens sapiens, but an earlier version.

brain volume

Please note that the Mongoloid has the most brain. And there are more signs of neoteny (preservation of signs of cubs in adults, which is considered progressive. According to some estimates, a person is an adult monkey embryo) in Mongoloids. This is epicanthus, even distribution of fat throughout the body, round face, lack of hair on the body and face.
But at the same time, the most successful were still white. This is because it is not enough to be smart and beautiful - you also need to be lucky.

There are hormonal differences between whites and blacks: the latter have more testosterone and less serotonin. They are less inclined to altruism and sympathy, but more prone to crime.

Blacks have bigger testicles, their erection looks different. They have different preferred coitus positions (behind rather than face to face like whites and orangutans). They have more sexual partners, more children, and men are less likely to live in a family.

African children develop differently than European children.

They do everything earlier, but this does not mean that they are more developed, but are simply born with a smaller brain volume, and therefore they form faster - monkey cubs are immediately able to hold on to their mother and look around. Even the pregnancy of black women lasts less.

Finally, there are genetic differences:
Table of genetic distances

All this is manifested in the difference in intelligence

and psychological differences

The Negroes failed to create civilizations. They didn't domesticate animals, they didn't learn to sail, they didn't create writing.
Signs of civilization:

Thus, blacks are not related to us. It is useless to teach them, and in no case should they be allowed to mix with whites, because this will lower the level of intelligence. This has already happened in due time with the Egyptians and the Portuguese. Furley suspects that the fall of the ancient Greek civilization was also not without blacks, but has not yet figured out how this happened. Working on this issue.

I really want to agree with him, but what to do with Pushkin, Dumas and even Obama? Somehow it doesn't pan out.

It is perfectly normal that whites are afraid of blacks. It was Martin Luther King who said that he had a dream that people would be judged not by the color of their skin, but by their deeds and moral qualities. But if you see a negro in an alley at night, do you have time to assess his moral qualities? No, you better run.

But the most important thing: these erectuses "our girls are being led to the office." Furley does not understand at all what women find in them, although before that he devoted an entire chapter to the sexual practices of Africans: they have more desire, and something also more, and they know how to care, and are cheerful.
Children from mixed marriages are genetically terribly far from their parents. The white parent is closer to the neighbor's children than his own mulattos.

In short, the book is almost humorous.

But the fact that races can be mistaken for subspecies is a fact. Indeed, some two birds, the differences between which only a narrow specialist can see, are different species, and the black and white are one species, when the difference, as they say, is obvious. Even three-month-old children can distinguish whites from blacks (there is a link to the literature).
Well, let's say Furley is right, and they recognize races as subspecies - and how will this make it easier for him?

I also believe that the African origin of man has not yet been definitively proven. So there is something to think about.

"Anthropology is one of those rare sciences that only a few professors can privatize."

Fritz Lenz, German racial theorist

"If my theory does not agree with the facts, then so much the worse for the facts."

G.W.F. Hegel

Contrary to public opinion, widely disseminated by the media, in modern science there is no single stable idea about the origin of the human race. New discoveries in genetics and paleontology seem to raise more questions than they answer. Representatives of modern anthropological science, interpreting the secrets of our origin, are entangled in the principles of guild solidarity, like a medieval corporation of alchemists, and belonging to one camp or another can cost a person, if not life, as in the days of Giordano Bruno, then, in any case, reputation and social status . The right to own the history of the human race is a truly invaluable information resource, which is why the battles around it in the academic environment do not subside. Science today is a matter of great finance and prestige, and every political regime is doing its best to improve its image by patronizing scientists and giving the impression of general concern with theoretical problems that are actually controlled by only a few people. Those who own the past of mankind will be able to take possession of its future, so you need to have great courage to challenge the big businessmen from science, including in this most important area.

Among such restless and "uncomfortable" truth-seekers is the modern American scientist Richard Ferle, Richard Fuerle, the author of the book Erectus wanders between us, which has made a splash in the West. This fundamental work on almost the entire set of modern data affecting the problem of the evolution of man and his races fully reflects the severity of discussions in the scientific community, as well as the degree of interest of biased circles of politicians, jurists and representatives of the mass media.

Richard Ferlet is a classic example of a "free thinker". And if in the modern Russian understanding this definition has rather a negative meaning, implying dilettantism and "knowing" of an amateur philosopher, then the situation is completely different in the Anglo-Saxon tradition, where a free thinker is primarily a high-level professional who personally bears the burden of economic and social responsibility for fruits of their intellectual activity. This is a man of mental labor, he pays for everything according to the bills, reports only to his conscience, the canons of science and is not subject to the whiffs of the political situation.

Richard Ferle does not live in an "ivory tower", but on a small island near New York, surrounded by pristine nature, and despite mature age, calls himself an eternal student, as he combines a relentless craving for self-improvement with studying at prestigious educational institutions. He holds a bachelor's degree in mathematics, physics, chemistry, a master's degree in economics, and a doctorate in law. It is this wide range of knowledge that allowed Ferlet to work as a patent examiner for a long time, and, like no one else, he knows how insidious and sometimes illusory the boundary separating science and jurisprudence, without which the functioning of modern society today is simply unthinkable. Over the long years of his career, having seen enough of the intrigues and machinations that are happening at this “border crossing”, as befits a true free thinker, he decided to independently analyze the key problem of the evolution of mankind and its races, clearly showing that there is a place for smuggling in science. Thus was born his book, which has already been reprinted several times.

However, Richard Ferle's talents are not limited to this, for he is an amateur composer, as well as the author of monographs on the Austrian economy, natural law and the theory of anarchism.

Fully aware of the scale of the task, the scientist begins the preface with philosophical discussions about the system of values in science, emphasizing that the so-called "pure science" is a myth. The main problem is the dialogue between representatives of polar opposite views on the theory of evolution of human races. According to the author, the generalization of these data is "exciting material", since "fraud in anthropology has become the norm." The times of free disputes have long since sunk into oblivion, and the entire Western world is literally entangled in the snares of the "equality police", spreading everywhere the norms of egalitarianism, comparable to the bacilli of the "intellectual plague".

Erectus roams between us. Conquering the White Race Erectus Walks Amongst Us. The evolution of modern humans» by Richard D. Fuerle Vladimir Avdeev...»

-- [ Page 1 ] --

Richard D. Ferle

Erectus roams between us. Conquest of the white race

Erectus Walks Amongst Us. The evolution of modern humans" by Richard D. Fuerle

Vladimir Avdeev

The Conspiracy Anthropology of Richard Ferlet

“Anthropology is one of those rare sciences that can be privatized by just

several professors.

Fritz Lenz, German racial theorist

"If my theory does not agree with the facts, then so much the worse for the facts."

G.W.F. Hegel

Contrary to public opinion, widely disseminated by the media, in modern science there is no single stable idea about the origin of the human race.

New discoveries in genetics and paleontology seem to raise more questions than they answer.

Representatives of modern anthropological science, interpreting the secrets of our origin, are entangled in the principles of guild solidarity, like a medieval corporation of alchemists, and belonging to one camp or another can cost a person, if not life, as in the days of Giordano Bruno, then, in any case, reputation and social status . The right to own the history of the human race is a truly invaluable information resource, which is why the battles around it in the academic environment do not subside. Science today is a matter of great finance and prestige, and every political regime is doing its best to improve its image by patronizing scientists and giving the impression of general concern with theoretical problems that are actually controlled by only a few people. Those who own the past of mankind will be able to take possession of its future, so you need to have great courage to challenge the big businessmen from science, including in this most important area.

Richard Ferle does not live in an “ivory tower”, but on a small island near New York, surrounded by pristine nature, and, despite his mature age, calls himself an eternal student, as he combines a relentless craving for self-improvement with studying at prestigious educational institutions . He holds a bachelor's degree in mathematics, physics, chemistry, a master's degree in economics, and a doctorate in law. It is this wide range of knowledge that allowed Ferlet to work as a patent examiner for a long time, and, like no one else, he knows how insidious and sometimes illusory the boundary separating science and jurisprudence, without which the functioning of modern society today is simply unthinkable.

Over the long years of his career, having seen enough of the intrigues and machinations that are happening at this “border crossing”, as befits a true free thinker, he decided to independently analyze the key problem of the evolution of mankind and its races, clearly showing that there is a place for smuggling in science. Thus was born his book, which has already been reprinted several times.

However, the talents of Richard Ferle are not limited to this, for he is an amateur composer, as well as the author of monographs on the Austrian economy, natural law and the theory of anarchism.

The main conspiracy secret of the origin of the human races, according to Ferlet, is that there really is no secret, but there is a secret of the origin of those who create this secret with enviable regularity. As the need to figure out who needs it and benefits, the author formulates the task of his work with the typical meticulousness of a patent expert. Ferlet skillfully builds a logical chain based on the basic data of archeology, genetics, the general theory of evolution, the evolutionary theory of sex, psychology, leading us to the conclusion that the emergence of human races is due to the entire course of the organic development of nature: “The races arose before the appearance of erectus, from the time of Australopithecus that is, the appearance of races preceded the appearance of the genus Homo. From the standpoint of Darwin's general theory of evolution, "the frequency of specific traits that provide greater reproductive success will increase in populations."

Thus, the increase in the concentration of racial traits and, as a consequence of the evolutionary isolation of races, is a natural path for the organic development of nature. Biological differences are the main driver in the struggle for the survival of species - this is the root of Darwin's theory.

“In other words, genetic equality, egalitarianism makes evolution impossible. And without the ability to evolve, biological species can only die out with changes in the habitat that inevitably occur.

The ecological niche in which a race develops inevitably shapes its specialization. On the basis of data from archeology, cultural history, genetics and the theory of behavior, Ferlet illustrates the correctness of his arguments, which confirm general theory evolution. Natural selection created traits and fixed them hereditarily, which contributed to the development of races.

These natural scientific conclusions lead to the fact that the theory of the origin of modern humans from Africa is untenable and openly politically biased, since “the genetic differences between Africans and Europeans are so pronounced that the proportion of European admixture in Africans can be determined at an error level of only 0 .02".

Ferlet considers and systematizes in great detail the main differences between races at the morphological and then genetic level, clearly demonstrating the degree of remoteness of the main racial trunks from each other and the level of specialization of representatives of modern races.

The morphological development of the brain is directly related to the IQ, which, in turn, determines the specifics of human behavior and its civilizational abilities.

Altruistic tendencies, criminal tendencies, and sexual behavior patterns are also functional outcomes of brain development. The specificity of sexual-marital relations clearly indicates where it is necessary to look for the centers of the emergence of races. “Pairing was an important step towards humanization, and since it is less characteristic of Africans, this trait did not originate in Africa, and the population that embarked on the path of humanization was not African.

If we talk about the donation of money, blood or human organs, then Europeans are much more generous than representatives of other races, and they show this generosity regardless of whether the person in need is their relative or not. Therefore, these fatal racial-evolutionary differences cannot be eliminated with the help of social philanthropy. “Trillions of dollars are being spent on programs aimed at closing the gap in academic achievement between whites and blacks.

All these programs have failed. Geneticists identify the genes responsible for intelligence and estimate the prevalence of these genes around the world. Not surprisingly, the prevalence of such genes in Africa is much lower than in Europe or Asia. It is hard to argue that blacks are incapable of achievement because of poor education or because of racist attitudes on the part of whites if they do not have the genes necessary for learning.

Between the evolutionary morphology of the body in representatives of various races and their abilities for culture, a direct and obvious connection is thus revealed: “The primitive features include larger muscles, more developed aromatic glands, a smaller brain with less pronounced convolutions, a smaller anteroposterior and smaller frontal lobes. Less protruding nasal bones are also a primitive trait, as early hominids lacked external nasal bones; the African nose is very flat. Practically all racial differences between Africans and natives of Eurasia lie in the area of primitive traits, and if Africans generally have signs of a more perfect development than the inhabitants of Eurasia, then they are extremely few.

The evidence shows a very large number of differences in bone tissue, soft tissue, physiology, behavior, intelligence, cultural achievements and genes. And, most importantly, all available data are consistent with each other. It does not happen that the genes testify to the development of blacks, and the bones testify to their primitiveness. All evidence suggests one thing: they are primitive, less evolved and closer to our anthropoid ancestors.”

With the help of these facts, gleaned from classical works on evolutionary anthropology, the author brings readers to the main thesis of his book: the modern politically tolerant concept of the origin of all human races from Africa does not stand up to criticism, because it is intensively implanted in the public consciousness by purely political methods, being in an obvious contradictions with the principles of objective science.

And here begins, in our opinion, the most interesting thing, which today has led to such a massive popularity of the American scientist, since Richard Ferlet can be presented as one of the heralds of a whole trend that would be appropriate to call conspiracy anthropology. For in no other way than with the help of conspiracy theory, it is impossible to explain the persistence of liberal circles, with which they are pushing the concept of the African origin of mankind to the surface of public consciousness with all their might. It should be emphasized that the very term "conspiracy anthropology" was first introduced into use by the author of these lines, although the very tendency of political falsification of the history of mankind can be traced back to medieval church hierarchs. These facts of falsification are widely publicized, but attempts to appropriate the genealogical tree of mankind continue to this day, so it is extremely important to consider the methodology of modern encroachments on freedom of discussion, which is the basic principle of the existence of science. And although the days of the fires of the Inquisition have passed, the methods of modern tradition of ostracizing the authority of a scientist are still very effective. In this regard, Richard Ferlet's Erectus Walks Between Us is a very valuable tool for maintaining an atmosphere of sanity in modern society, being a kind of guide to the labyrinths of modern conspiracy anthropology. And the invaluable experience of the American scientist will serve as a kind of Ariadne's thread in this matter.

Criticizing the aforementioned fashionable hypothesis, the author rightly asks the following questions: “If a modern type of man existed in Africa 160,000 years ago, then why are today's Africans so primitive in all respects? Haven't Africans reverse-evolved from more advanced ancestors, becoming more primitive? Another question that springs to mind is why did tropical-adapted Africans leave Africa 65,000 years ago, just in the middle of the first ice age (which lasted roughly 73,000 to 55,000 years ago), when more of the cold-adapted hominids of Eurasia were moving south? And the last question: why did African erectus become sapiens, and not Asian or European ones, especially in light of the fact that the habitat in Eurasia was more selective for modern traits, and turning into Homo sapiens would give a greater advantage?

The author rightly draws attention to the fact that one of the key principles of biology is the multiregional theory of the origin of species, and asks the question, why should this rule be discarded, as Afrocentrists do when considering the origin of the human race?

Such questions arise in any unbiased researcher by themselves.

Ferlet emphasizes that fundamental morphological differences in the structure of the skull and skeleton in fossil ancestors from different parts of the world arose much earlier than this supposed settlement took place. In addition, the age of these morphophysiological differences is estimated at hundreds of thousands of years and even millions. That is, on the face of a chronological inconsistency and logical inconsistencies in the concept of Afrocentrists.

Even worse, from the point of view of elementary logic, things are with this theory when we begin to analyze its chronological aspects in geographical space. “How is it possible that allegedly modern Africans could not even reach the islands off the African coast just a few thousand years ago? That the islands, even visible from Africa, have not been explored and inhabited certainly suggests that Africans were not yet developed even very recently, so it is simply ridiculous to believe that they were developed when they allegedly migrated from Africa 65,000 years back. How could modern Africans supposedly not only leave Africa and make their way through Europe and Asia, but even get to Australia and the islands Pacific Ocean never reaching the islands very close to its coast? - the American scientist rightly asks.

As is known, the breeding of domestic animals and the selective cultivation of valuable varieties of plants are indispensable attributes of any phase of the development of human society. In the same way, traces of vital activity at the sites of mass migrations, scattered over the surface of the Earth, should clearly indicate the direction of movement of masses of people. But in the most striking way, it turns out that nothing of the kind has been found in Africa - the supposed cradle of mankind. One gets the impression that the progenitors of modern races simultaneously scattered over all even the most remote regions of the land from one place, leaving no traces of their temporary stay anywhere, and in the process of this magical levitation, they changed the whole complex of racial characteristics, consisting of thousands of parameters, at once and in a very diverse way, after This created completely different and dissimilar types of civilization.

Modern methods of science only exacerbate the overall picture of absurdity in the Afrocentric concept. Differences in mitochondrial DNA between Europeans, Africans and Asians arose much earlier than in the exodus from Africa. To cover this obvious mathematical casuistry, the creators of the concept even had to invent some fantastic zoological creature like a fictional character in a children's cartoon for the needs of a bored public.

"Mitochondrial Eve" is a metaphysical name given by the Afrocentrists to our "mother", who they believe lived in Africa about 150,000 years ago, from whom all living people got their mitochondrial DNA. “This 'Eva' was not the only woman, since a viable population would have to include at least a thousand married couples. According to Afrocentric ideas, all women in this population either had the same mitochondrial DNA, or, having a different mitochondrial DNA, did not have daughters.

It seems that this is already reminiscent of the tricks of card sharpers with the substitution of cards within the same suit, when a jack suddenly turns out of a six. But the wonders of the amusing "concept" do not end there, for in the framework of the modern tradition, Afrocentrists argue that the human genealogical tree, built on a computer, clearly points to the African ancestral home. And since this is calculated on a computer, then this is the ultimate truth. But Richard Ferle, himself a certified mathematician, shows that this family tree can just as well be derived from the Martians, since a computer is just a technical device that performs someone else's will according to a given program, nothing more. And it is not his fault that the will of the Afrocentrists opposes all the laws of mathematical logic. “The family tree of the Exodus from Africa theory is not a simple tree. In fact, there are over a billion such evolutionary trees. For these reasons, until technical problems are overcome, mitochondrial DNA will not be able to answer questions about either Eve's habitat or her age. If computer-generated genealogies by Afrocentrists don't prove that Eve lived in Africa, and don't even provide a reliable answer to the question of when she lived, is it possible to use mitochondrial DNA data in some other way to find out where she lived?

The American scientist also gives an impressive list of genes responsible for the morphological structure of the brain, which are present in Europeans and are completely absent in people from the African continent. This fact also confirms the impossibility of the origin of modern races from this region. Afrocentrists do not disdain frank falsification of the principles of taxonomy, resorting to the practice of double standards. The cumulative genetic distances for human races are several times greater than those for animal breeds, but at the same time, Afrocentrists argue that the human races belong to the same species, and the animal breeds mentioned belong to different ones. Where is the logic and universality of the principles of classification for all organisms in nature?

Further, the author of the book rightly draws attention to the fact that genes are grouped into gene complexes, which in turn determine racial characteristics, therefore, between the main branches of humanity, these are not only differences in gene frequencies, but also in recombinations of gene complexes, and at this level racial differences are even clearer and more tangible: “Thus, the genes responsible for light skin and hair color could not have had an initial foothold in Africa, but only in a population that lived in Eurasia and lived there long enough for all existing genes encoding light skin and hair color.

In recent decades, studies of the nuclear DNA of human populations have become widespread, and here the situation for fans of the Exodus from Africa theory is even more deplorable. “In fact, there is no plausible model for the transformation of African nuclear DNA into Caucasian and Mongoloid nuclear DNA, and there is no evidence that the population of Eurasia ever possessed any genes specific to Africans.

For example, Caucasoid and Mongoloid skulls do not have features characteristic of African skulls, and traces of African-specific genes, such as curly hair, are not found in modern inhabitants of Eurasia, whose ancestors did not mix with Africans,” notes Richard Ferle.

Differences in the genetic structure most directly affect the intelligence of populations and the specifics of their evolutionary struggle for existence. “It would take much more than 65,000 years to replace the population of Eurasia with people from Africa. Assuming they have characteristics that Africans had 65,000 years ago, it is highly implausible that they had preeminence in foraging on continents with which they were unfamiliar, even if the inhabitants of Eurasia were more primitive. In addition, it is very unlikely that the Eurasians welcomed the Africans with open arms on their territory, thus a gradual peaceful replacement was not possible.

It would seem that any sane person, even without special knowledge in evolutionary anthropology, would have enough common sense to reject the hypothesis of the origin of modern human races from Africa. But Afrocentrists are very, very stubborn, so their system of evidence gives the external impression of an obsessive psychopathic destructive mania. In this regard, Richard Ferle rightly sums up: “Even Afrocentrists are forced to agree that the population of Eurasia has evolved more than Africans. Modern genetics confirms that Africans are most closely related to today's great apes. This means that even if people originally came to Eurasia from Africa, then the current Africans, whose ancestors did not leave Africa, had to go a shorter evolutionary path from an ape-like ancestor than Africans who left Africa. This in itself puts egalitarianism in serious doubt - everyone cannot be genetically the same when some are more ape-like than others.

And as a real professional scientist, completely independent of the political situation, Ferlet rightly states: “Summing up, let's say that the theory of the “Exodus from Africa” is defeated on all fronts; it testifies only to the power of egalitarianism to distort science.”

Egalitarianism, that is, the ideology of equality of all at the biological level through miscegenation, inevitably leads to heat death according to the laws of thermodynamics, and these physical patterns are easily found in world history at the level of development of individual states, empires and even large civilizational associations. It was racial chaos that destroyed ancient Egypt, Babylon, Greece and Rome. We can easily observe the same depressing processes today: “Life, like other acts of creation, is a local decrease in entropy (structural disorder), metization, like death, destruction and chaos, increases entropy.”

All social conflicts in the form of revolutions, spontaneous riots and just domestic violence, according to Ferlet, are basically the opposition of nature against the chaos of confusion, incited by the priests of egalitarianism. In addition, miscegenation inevitably causes a decrease in the IQ of the citizens of the state and leads to a general decline in culture, which today is observed almost everywhere in large metropolitan areas. Biological immunity is also reduced, which in turn leads to a general weakening of the constitution and degeneration. "In race mixing there is no plan to create a fitter person, or even a healthier, more intelligent, or any other desirable quality."

Therefore, the author of the book rightly concludes that the doctrine of egalitarianism is a form of mental pathology, and only a reasonable program of eugenics can save the world from chaos, degradation and degeneration. “Egalitarianism is an ideology at war with biology, and the creatures of Nature cannot survive for long following a suicidal ideology. Nature calls man to fight and defeat his rivals. Egalitarianism calls on a person, at least a white one, to welcome his rivals and contribute to their triumph over him.

Mixing, according to the scientist, inevitably leads to the erosion of the system of moral values, therefore, racially mixed societies are destroyed not only biologically, but also ethically, since the zealots of equality are accustomed to consider themselves as arbiters of morality. “The claim to moral superiority, however, is inconsistent with the multiculturalist thesis of “the equality of all cultures,” and since culture includes morality, if one's morals are higher, others must be lower. Indeed, even multiculturalists consider some cultural practices alien to us to be immoral.”

At the end of his essay, Richard Ferle calls on readers, based on all of the above, to soberly assess the whole drama of the situation for white people and make an informed choice in the interests of their own future. In this matter, the author adheres to the main line clearly marked in such philosophical books as Oswald Spengler's The Decline of Europe, Madison Grant's The Decline of the Great Race, Patrick Buchanan's The Death of the West, and many others. In his opinion, no one but the whites themselves is to blame for their extinction today, and no one but the whites can save them from historical disappearance.

Of particular value to this book is the fact that in most of the writings we have mentioned, the contours of the coming catastrophe of the “white world” were substantiated at the philosophical and speculative level, and our contemporary Richard Ferle relies on the facts of population genetics, forensic science and existing legal practice, which undoubtedly increases the value of the author's judgments. His book is no longer an emotionally apocalyptic warning, but a medical diagnosis of a patient with a clear prescription for surgical intervention in order to save his life.

After reading this landmark book, the modern Russian reader will undoubtedly receive rich food for thought, because with the fall of the Iron Curtain and the end of the era " cold war»

it is becoming increasingly clear that the destinies of white people in both the western and eastern hemispheres are inseparable and interconnected.

It was the altruism of white people, who enthusiastically began to recklessly scatter the seeds of their civilization over all parts of the Earth during the Age of Discovery, played a cruel joke on them, because no one asked them for such royal cultural gifts. A seemingly contradictory but extremely metaphysical Russian proverb “If you don’t want evil, don’t do good to people”

in the racial context of the current situation, it acquires a very clear meaning. White people themselves called trouble on their future by the inappropriate sacrificial squandering of hereditary talents.

“Ultimately, the most valuable thing that white people have is their genome. They can lose territory and wealth, but, keeping their genome intact, they will be able to survive and regain everything they have lost, ”announces the American scientist Richard Ferlet, like an oracle new era genetic determinism.

Translation from English: Cand. biol. Sciences D.O. Rumyantsev (Parts I, III–V), Ph.D. psychol. Sciences I.V.

Zhuravlev (Part II) Foreword "If you resolve a controversial issue without hearing all sides, you will be wrong at least half the time."

Each person is a product of his time. We are all sure that our values and aspirations are moral, but this cannot be true, since every generation believes in this, nevertheless, different generations have extremely conflicting values. Just a few centuries ago, our ancestors did not find anything terrible in owning and selling other people, and a few millennia before that, a representative of a neighboring tribe could be the main dish for dinner. Had we lived then, there is little doubt that we would not have objected. A few hundred years after us, a future generation will probably view our values as ignorant and barbaric as we view the values of our predecessors.

I mention this to encourage the reader to discard, or at least rein in, the opinions, attitudes, and beliefs he has acquired throughout his life, as many of them will be challenged in this book. Let's go beyond our time as if we had just arrived on this planet and weigh all the evidence and arguments presented. It is almost impossible to reach the truth by listening to only one side, you have to hear the other.

Much of what people are now being told in school and through the media is not true. There are knowledgeable people who know that this is so, but they dare not say anything. The rest live in this sea of disinformation. Since almost everyone considers misinformation to be prevalent, let's assume that this must be true. Therefore, acting on the basis of disinformation, we make important life decisions that all too often turn out to be detrimental.

Today, in my declining years, I see no greater gift to give to the next generation than to challenge at least some of these, I believe, false beliefs. To encourage distribution of this book, it is being published royalty-free and may be copied with attribution without liability to the author. I hope to make the book available for free download on the Internet, as I have done with my other books.

Very little held me back from writing this book.

Efforts have been made to sidestep inconsequential but shocking facts, especially those that some would find offensive. Such facts are presented openly where they cannot be omitted. I tried to be as correct as possible, although I would be surprised by the absence of errors, since the areas involved are very wide and assumptions were required to fill in the gaps in the proofs. Whenever possible, I avoided professional language and gave explanations of the terms used. The book could have included a lot of additional material, but after about four years of almost exclusively this work, I decided it was time to complete the work.

Thanks

Many have made suggestions and provided the information included in this book. Dr Willard W.

Olson is to be commended for his apt observations and original ideas in the field of human evolution. His vast knowledge of biology, especially concerning fossil skulls, was extremely helpful, and I greatly appreciate his direct and honest conclusions.

A large number of members of the "e-1" and "ADlist" Internet communities at Yahoo also made insightful remarks and brought information to my attention.

The book traces its origins to self-taught ex-Marine Ronald A. Fonda explaining repeatedly in these two Yahoo communities why he believes the "Out of Africa" theory of human origins is wrong. Although he maintains a website on the subject, which hosts papers supporting his position (www.rafonda.com), I believe they are presented in a predominantly professional language that is difficult for the layman to understand.

Convinced that he had achieved something, I suggested to him and others who agreed with him that they write a book that would make his ideas clear to the common man. When I realized a few months later that no one was going to start writing this book, I offered my services as its editor. It seemed to me that I should make what was written easy to understand and not leave gaps that could undermine the arguments. But still no one gave me anything to edit, so I started researching and writing myself, first as an "editor", and then wrote almost everything as Ron's collaborator.

Ron and I have already climbed out of our skin, proving that modern man did not originate in Africa, but only in Eurasia. This contradicts both scientific theories: both the Exodus from Africa theory and the Multiregional Hypothesis. As the book progressed, Ron, somewhat reluctantly, and I agreed that there were sufficient grounds for believing that the evolution of man from a primitive mammal did not occur anywhere in Africa and that the human lineage is closer to the Asian orangutan than to the African chimpanzee. . But that was the limit of Ron's speculation.

By the time of the serious discussion of Chapter 24, I had become convinced that biology is no different from physics in that it is also limited by laws or rules. Data from genetics and archeology give an age of origin for races of about 65,000 years, but these rules imply that races originated over 2 million years ago. Since Ron and I could not agree on how to resolve these and other differences, we parted amicably.

This book contains material that I find extremely exciting, especially as it is unlikely to be easily found elsewhere, particularly in one book. To bring everything together, it was necessary to conduct research in the most various areas(for example, in genetics, physical anthropology, sociology, paleontology, psychology), digging up controversial and contradictory information, partly erroneous and even fraudulent. Realizing the enormity of this task, I was repeatedly tempted to give it up. Luckily, Ron had already acquired a good knowledge of these areas, carefully thought through the implications of the information he gathered, and was able to keep me on track.

Ronald Fonda is thus to be commended not only for the impetus for this book, but for the many ideas scattered throughout it. Part III is based almost entirely on his website www.rafonda.com, and he is also responsible for many of the ideas in Part IV.

I am not overlooking the fact that the theory of human origins offered in this book is contradicted by the vast literature in support of the Exodus from Africa theory. However, there are good reasons to believe that this theory is wrong and that modern man did not evolve in Africa. I hope that the reader will impartially consider the case brought to his trial, while I eagerly sit in the dock, awaiting the verdict.

As always, I take all errors and erroneous statements personally.

Comments and corrections without swear words can be emailed to me at:

[email protected]

Introduction “We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the true tragedy of life is when an adult is afraid of the light.”

Plato When man acquired a brain capable of abstract thinking, one of his first questions was to be: "Where did we come from?" The answer was to endow oneself with a glorious lineage - from the gods, from Mother Earth herself, from mythical monsters or from giant animals.

But modern science suggests a more mundane origin - man descended from apes, a member of the same family as modern chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans. Millions of years later, the descendants of this ape evolved enough to separate from their ape-like ancestors to become a separate genus of Homo, man. Many years and many species of Homo passed before the appearance of the first intelligent man, a somewhat primitive looking Homo sapiens, and still later, a very intelligent man appeared, Homo sapiens sapiens, modern man. (Gives itself the most laudatory names.) In paleoanthropology, the science that studies the extinct ancestors of man, much is disputed, and as we move back in time, the origin of man becomes less and less certain.

Despite this, I decided to take the risk of error and make some plausible assumptions about the early stage of the evolutionary path of man from his beginning as a primitive mammal to the time when he began to walk on two legs. However, the book focuses primarily on the question of how man evolved from a bipedal great ape to his present state.

Ask most paleoanthropologists where man originated, and they, like Charles Darwin, will answer with one word - "Africa" - Africa, from the very beginning and on every subsequent stage of the journey, except for the last, when races formed. They will say that the natives of tropical Africa were the first people of the modern type, and the Mongoloids and Caucasoids evolved from these Africans. Not everyone will agree with this answer, and this book presents an alternative scenario.

The layman may decide that the question of origin modern man will be studied in the same way as other scientific questions, or at least assume that the study will consist of dispassionately examining the data and drawing the following conclusions from them. Unfortunately, when a person studies himself, he is not an unbiased observer. Anthropologists are not Martians, they are people and, like everyone else, have their own ideological and psychological leaps.

One might expect that, like some of the first people to question where they came from, paleoanthropologists would choose a glorious past for their people and a less dignified one for others, but this is not the case. Just as tennis etiquette directs the winner not to boast of his victory, but to kindly tell the loser that he played well and was a dangerous opponent, even if this was not true, most paleoanthropologists try not to focus on the differences between different populations, thereby downplaying strengths his people and exaggerating the strengths of others.

Why they do this is an interesting question, since self-pride is certainly more natural than self-denigration, but nevertheless there are good reasons for doing this, and anthropologists are not the only ones behaving in this way. This is currently the only acceptable behavior in all western (white) societies, including the US, Canada, Europe, Australia and New Zealand. And while the winner of a tennis match who tells his losing partner, "You're a bad tennis player" only suffers disapproving looks for violating etiquette, remarking that an ethnic group is undesirable can result in a fine and jail time, especially if it's true.

Egalitarianism, the dominant ideology of our time, believes that all people are universally equal, at least genetically, and any suggestion to the contrary is simply unacceptable. I will refer to those who do not allow any questions regarding genetic equality to be asked the "Equality Police". On most campuses, the Equality Police enforce "speech code" (i.e., rules that stifle free speech) and (mandatory) "lessons of tolerance" (i.e., brainwashing). Those who are "unreceptive" (i.e., think in their own way) may end up being disciplined, expelled, or worse. Research that could reveal racial differences, especially in intelligence and behavior, is strictly prohibited, which created difficulties in collecting relevant information for this book. In some areas, you have to rely on data from more than a century ago.

Consideration of the origins of egalitarianism and the damage it causes to science and scientists is largely beyond the scope of this book, but it should be noted that egalitarianism is an intellectual plague that has affected mainly the West and relatively little affected the Africans of tropical Africa and the natives of Asia. Egalitarianism is especially harmful scientific research Racial Differences in Anthropology, Psychology and Sociology. Only findings consistent with racial egalitarianism are published in reputable scientific journals, and any research that can produce contrary data is not funded by governments and organizations that do not want to be labeled "hate groups."

What happens when a person sees the world not as it is, but as he would like to see it? He makes unwise decisions that lead to misfortune and waste of life resources. He is incapable of progress and doomed to stagnation in his inverted imaginary world.

Like Lamarck and later Lysenko, who believed that environmental changes could not only improve living organisms, but that these improvements would be inherited and passed on to future generations, today's egalitarians also believe that heredity is not a constraint.

- it does not determine the fate of a person. But unlike Lysenko, they see the reason not in the ability of the environment to change genes, but in the fact that now the genes of all people everywhere are practically the same. Only the environment makes people different - poor education, poor nutrition, poverty and, most of all, the malicious racism of white people. All that is needed for everyone everywhere to be equally successful and accomplished is to provide a level playing field and do "everything possible" to get rid of white racism.

Today in the West we live in the same political climate as the anti-Lysenko scholars in the Soviet Union. Scientific conclusions are desirable to be "correct"

conclusions, otherwise - blame yourself.

They will not disappear completely, as some of those scientists did, but they may well disappear from their jobs and from the pages of respectable journals, even if they are lucky enough to avoid prison. As Charles Murray so aptly put it: "When it comes to race, science is corrupted" simply ignored them in the second edition.

(Sarich, 2004, p. 72). Another example is Otto Klineberg (Garrett, 1960). See also Chapter 3 of Jared Diamond's review of Guns, Germs, and Steel by J.F.

Rushton and Garett Nardin, and Louis Andrews in Stalking the Wild Taboo online and (Sailer, 2007b).].

Egalitarianism is more powerful in the Western than in any other ideology. It ruins careers, bankrupts companies, and wastes trillions of dollars. Sneaking, lying and forsaking one's wealth and the well-being of oneself and one's children are used to avoid the wrath of the Equality Police. Strong and principled, not bent, are demonized and ostracized.

The Equality Police leave no crack in the edifice of egalitarianism, and those who defy it suffer from the inquisition of our day. John Entin wrote the book Taboo: Why Sports Are Predominated by Black Athletes and Why We're Afraid to Talk About It (Entine, 2001), which provides evidence of racial differences in athletic ability. For example, blacks excel at sports that require jumping (eg, basketball) and running (eg, football, treadmill, and marathon), while whites excel at swimmers, divers, and gymnasts. If he had stopped there, the book would not have been subject to the serious wrath of the Equality Police, since these observations are obvious to everyone. But Antin went further and showed that the anatomy of blacks and whites differed enough to show up in athletic ability. Anatomical differences are not "superficial" as they say, like hair and skin, but deeper, and threaten the basic premise of egalitarianism about the genetic sameness of all people. That is why Entin was vilified.

Dr. J. Philip Rushton, professor of psychology at the University of Western Ontario in Canada, suffered even more when he began discussing intellectual and other differences between races. In Race, Evolution, and Behavior (Rushton, 2000a), he notes that African Americans have an average IQ of 85, while sub-Saharan Africans have an IQ of only 70. If he had retired saying that it was due to the shameful racism of whites who made racially biased tests and prevented blacks from getting the education needed to get high IQ scores on these tests, he could be a hero. But instead, he stated that the gap in IQ is not due to test bias or environment, but to genetic differences, such as smaller brains. And he was demonized, persecuted at his university, and even a police investigation was carried out against him in order to find crime in his behavior.

The hypocritical United Nations, that bastion of multiculturalism, even initiated a declaration stating that there is no evidence of racial differences in intelligence. (Statement on Race, 1950). And one of the eminent geneticists, Dr.

Bruce Lahn refused to conduct research on genetic differences between races because they were "too controversial" (Regalado, 2006). Spencer Wells, chairman of the US National Geographic Society, who plans to spend forty million dollars on a five-year project to collect DNA samples from 100,000 aboriginal people from around the globe, said that differences in the structure of their brains will not be studied, because "I I think that there is too little evidence of differences in IQ among representatives of different races, ”despite a lot of evidence to the contrary (Ibid.).

Scholars, like much of the rest of the white population, fear being labeled 'racist'

from the Equality Police. Some of their muddled publications suggest that they do not dare to question egalitarianism even in their own minds, like the "doublethink" in George Orwell's 1984, where his character Winston suppressed even his own thoughts.

Just as Antin might not have assumed that there were racial differences in athletic ability, and Rushton might not have assumed that there were racial differences in intellectual ability, scientists may not assume that the races diverged very long ago (and therefore had plenty of time to evolve into genetically very different peoples). But since all races are genetically the same, they could not have diverged very long ago, and therefore modern man must have appeared relatively recently, and all discoveries in the study of the origins of modern man must support this conclusion.

How far will the Equality Police go to distort and obscure our origins? Here is a story from the UK, told by Armand M.

Leroy:

"Henry Flower became director of the British Museum natural history in 1884 and soon began rearranging the exhibits. He exhibited a collection of human skulls in such a way as to show the diversity of their forms in different parts of the globe. A century later, the skulls were removed, and in their place was a large photograph of football fans standing in the stands, bordered by the inscription: “We are all members of the same species, Homo sapiens. But we are not identical." In 2004 even that disappeared, and thus the world's largest natural history museum tells visitors nothing about the nature and extent of human biodiversity.

Of course, the Natural History Museum, like the British Museum of Natural History, is not the only institution that has sent such displays to the storerooms. After the 1960s

physical anthropologists, in an attempt to bury the idea of race, have buried phenotypes [distinctive forms], sometimes literally, as human remains were interred at the request of aboriginal claimants.”

The scientific theory of the origin of modern humanity, consistent with egalitarianism, is the Exodus from Africa (E-E-A) theory. According to the I-and-A theory, modern man (Homo sapiens sapiens) originated in Africa, after which he migrated to other parts of the world. Thus, according to the concept of egalitarianism, all modern people are completely modern. Moreover, since the out-of-Africa migration occurred relatively recently (about 65,000 years ago), only very little human evolution has taken place since that time. In view of the fact that the migrants from tropical Africa were quite modern people and they did not have enough time for any significant genetic evolution, then all modern people should be genetically the same. So essentially "we are all Africans".

I-and-A theory is the generally accepted theory of the origin of modern man. in textbooks and training courses colleges and universities, it is presented as recognized by scientists. Even Rushton is convinced that she is right (Rushton, 2000a, pp. 217–233). But science moves inexorably forward in its path to truth. Truth will prevail, not because a person is noble or wise, but because he cannot survive for a long time with an erroneous view of reality. Gradually the deluded person will be replaced by the one who sees reality as it is.

Part I What Every Paleoanthropologist Should Know

In order to understand our origins, you will be introduced to some of the discovered remains of fossil humans and how evolution "works" by changing living organisms in the direction of their best adaptation to their environment. Definitions of the technical terms used can be found in the Glossary of Terms, only a short list is given below.

Million years = million years.

BC = d.n. e.

Aus = Australopithecus Hs = Homo sapiens - our immediate archaic ancestors.

Hss = Homo sapiens sapiens - modern man.

He = Homo erectus - human species immediately before Hs.

LCA = Last Common Ancestor - The last ancestor from which two individuals or two groups descended.

I-i-A = "Exodus from Africa", the now dominant theory of the origin of modern man in Africa.

I-i-E = Exodus from Eurasia, the theory of human origins offered in this book.

Early Man = Homo but not Homo sapiens, Archaic Man = Homo sapiens but not Homo sapiens sapiens.

Modern man = Homo sapiens sapiens.

Chapter 1 History of the origin of mankind

As can be understood from the first lines of this book, it presents a brief account of the origin of man. Much of it is admittedly speculative, but probably no more so than other similar narratives. A more or less complete story is presented, although it includes some guesswork to fill in the gaps, making it easier to read than isolated facts separated by chasms of mystery. I will not keep repeating "in accordance with the position of the author", and the reader should understand that the conclusions and explanations reflect the position of the author, based on the citations and references.

The story begins about 60 million years ago in the tropics of Asia. Early primates ("prosimians") lived in trees, where they were protected from most predators. Some of the prosimians clung to trees vertically and had an upright posture. They supported themselves and climbed with strong hind legs, and used more dexterous forelegs to grasp branches and food, and moved from branch to branch, swinging on their forelimbs: they were "brachiators". The arms became longer because their lengthening allowed them to swing harder and move more efficiently, just as longer legs increase the efficiency of walking.

The tail was no longer needed for balance and became a waste of the body's resources, so brachiators with shorter tails now have an advantage, and tails decrease in size and then completely disappear. Approximately 25 million years ago, tailless brachiators evolved into great apes. Great apes are less agile in trees and too heavy to reach fruit from the ends of thin branches, but their size plus group life eliminates the threat of small predators so they have been able to use ground or underground food such as tubers.

Some of the great apes of Eurasia live in swampy areas near lakes or seas, or in forests near rivers. Although their anatomy is not yet conducive to easy bipedal locomotion, branch walking skills have made it easier for them to wade through water, where they can gather aquatic food resources less readily available to other primates. Diverse habitats and group existence in trees, on land, and in water placed greater mental demands than living solely in trees, providing a survival advantage for those with larger brains and more intelligence.

Over time, they became anatomically better adapted to bipedalism and began to venture away from safe shallow water and areas near trees. This was a "giant step for humanity" as bipedalism alone was an important adaptation in human evolution; Man is the only truly bipedal mammal. Bipedal great apes appeared about 10 million years ago.

The bipedal apes of Eurasia kept to trees and bushes, where they gathered fruits and berries, and herds of animals that served as food for predators, picking up the remains of carcasses.

Walking on two legs allowed them to move further, faster and with less energy than four-legged great apes. Their hands were free to carry food, babies, and stones and sticks as weapons. An upright posture allowed them to overheat less in the sun and be able to forage for longer, as well as better detect predators. Weapons and tools have improved, as they can now be stored and carried with you, instead of being made as needed and then thrown away. As they transitioned from foraging to hunting, their larger brains allowed them to better plan and coordinate cooperative activities, thus getting more meat to feed their growing brains, creating a loop feedback: bigger brain better weapons and tools more meat bigger brain.

Since bipedal great apes move a lot on the ground, they are constantly in different environments. They must remember where and when to go, and what dangers and sources of food lie in all the various places they visit. They discover that association provides strength and security, and live in small groups whose members cooperate and help each other, which required understanding how to build relationships with other members of the group. The larger brain, despite the high energy requirement and extra weight, proved to be worth the cost.

Bipedal locomotion allows a mother to hold her infant with one hand and gather food with the other while she nurses him. When her legs are closer together, she expends less energy walking (Arsuaga, 2001, p. 92), but this narrows the birth canal, which means the baby must be born with a smaller and less developed skull; brain growth becomes delayed, and most of its growth occurs after birth. While this solves one problem, it also creates new problems: the now less developed infant requires longer care to survive. This happened about 4 million years ago: the bipedal great apes became Australopithecus, the last bipedal apes.

Australopithecus originated in the tropics, but the tropics were overpopulated, and some of the populations that did not succeed in the struggle for better territories were forced out into the less habitable subtropics with their seasonal and colder climate. If Australopithecus had remained in the tropics, there would be no Homo today, man.

The seasonal subtropical climate makes much higher mental demands than the tropical climate. In the tropics, various types of plant foods are available all year round, but in seasonal climates, edible plant parts are available only during the warm season, and in colder seasons, animals have to work harder to find food. In a person who relies on his brain, the seasonal climate produces a strong selection towards the increase in intelligence necessary to survive in this more mentally demanding environment. The surviving individuals passed on their genes to their offspring, the rest did not. Gradually Australopithecus adapted to colder climates.

Around 2 million years ago, a combination of efficient bipedal walking, free use of the arms, and greater intelligence and cooperation is bearing fruit for several northern Australopithecus species to become early humans, the genus Homo, then Homo erectus, and other pre-Homo sapiens species. .

As the erectus moved further north, seasonal changes increased and it became more difficult for them to survive. Their large brains and heightened intelligence were important, but it also required a completely different way of thinking. Impulsiveness and immediate rewards were replaced by thriftiness. Ignoring the future consequences of one's actions went away, careful planning became a necessity. The price paid by nature to become human was high - not a tropical garden of Eden, but a desperate struggle to survive the rigors of winter. The carefree fluttering of a dragonfly and "I'm lying in the sun, I'm looking at the sun ..."

were replaced by the hard work of an ant fighting for existence.

The relationship between the sexes also changed. In the North, where hunting was the most important source of food, women could not provide themselves and their children with shelter, animal skins and meat throughout the year without the help of men, otherwise they themselves and their children would die. Men who devoted themselves to one woman and cared for her, "fathers", passed on their genes to their sons;

a much smaller number of "scoundrels" passed on their genes to children, since they did not survive; in this way, pair bonds were strengthened.

Erectus also spread to the warmer regions of Africa, Europe and Asia, leading to the extinction of their more primitive predecessors, the Australopithecus. When they filled the territories in which they could gain a foothold, their powerful expansion stopped. Any further migration meant penetration into territories already occupied by other erectus, and required the struggle and victory over them. This was not easy to achieve, as the local erectus knew their territory well, its food resources and dangers and fiercely defended their fatherland.

In widely differing habitats, erectus continued to evolve. Each population became better adapted to its unique environment.

In the same way that Australopithecus became a distinct species, erectus became a distinct and biologically distinct race. In the northern regions where the climate is much colder, Asiatic erectus have acquired traits that allow them to survive the cold where others were unable to.

In Europe and Western Asia, early erectus evolved into Neanderthals, which happened about 350,000 years ago. In East Asia, cold-adapted erectus learned to use fire and moved further north, where they evolved into Homo sapiens (Hs) about 200,000 years ago. In Western Asia, erectus also evolved into Hs, but less cold-adapted. Then Hs further improved his skills and intelligence, spread even further north and became Homo sapiens sapiens (Hss), modern man, about 160,000 years ago. Where this happened is the main point of contention and the main subject of much of this book, but the author is convinced that it happened in Europe, Western Asia, and East Asia.

More advanced tools and weapons and higher intelligence Hss gave them an advantage not only in the North, but also in the South, still occupied by Hs and even erectus here and there in the tropics. So, as their numbers increased and the climate cooled so much that the snow no longer melted in winter, they migrated to the South, invading the territories occupied by Hs and erectus, sometimes dooming them to extinction, but sometimes interbreeding with them, forming hybrids. Glaciation in the Northern Hemisphere lowered sea levels and made possible the transition to the Pacific Islands and Australia.

When the ice eventually melted after thousands of years, the Hss moved north again. West Asian Hss spread across Europe, interbreeding to some extent with Neanderthals, and became modern Europeans.

Approximately 50,000 years ago, one or more mutations occurred in the Caucasoid population that affected the functioning of the human brain. Man gives rise to a complex culture, acquires religious beliefs, and also creates crafts, arts and tools that had to be previously visualized in his mind. These mutations were so favorable that they quickly spread throughout the Eurasian population. Then about 12,000 years ago there was Agriculture and the domestication of animals took place, and then, as they say, is history.

Such is the genealogy of mankind, set forth by the author of this book. Those who advocate the divine origin of man will disagree with me, as will most scientists who believe that man comes from Africa. Nevertheless, I hope that the reader will carefully consider the evidence supporting the author's claim before making his own decision.

Chapter 2 Early People

We will take a very brief look at some early people just to see what traits they had and how those traits gradually evolved.

It should be borne in mind that these fossils are classified somewhat arbitrarily, as species change gradually, and most species exist tens of thousands of years after some of their members have evolved into other species. It is not possible to place the fossilized remains of early humans in the order in which they evolved based on their intracranial volumes alone, since the latter vary between individuals and between the sexes (male skulls are larger and it is not always possible to determine the sex). Beyond that, there is no evidence that fossils evolved where they were found.

Homo habilis

First famous representative The genus Homo is Homo habilis ("handy man"), so named in connection with the finds of pebble tools along with his remains. H. habilis lived between 2.5 and 1.8 mya. Figure 2-1 shows a skull found in East Africa, in Tanzania.

The face is primitive, but lower jaw protrudes less than his Simian predecessors, although his arms were long. There are no external nasal bones yet, the eye sockets are large and the teeth are noticeably larger than in modern people. The intracranial volume is small, ranging from 500 to 800 cm3 (with an average of 650 cm3). On average, H. habilis is believed to have been 127 cm tall and about 45 kg in weight. Internal measurements of the skulls show that his brain had a humanoid shape.

A bulge in the region responsible for speech in the left hemisphere of the brain (Broca's area) suggests that H. habilis may have had rudimentary speech. He was also "the first hominin to add meat to his vegetarian diet" (Arsuaga, 2001, p. 157; Haywood, 2000, p. 26). It probably descended from a gracile bipedal great ape such as Australopithecus afarensis or Australopithecus africanus (Conroy, 1990).

Homo ergaster

Figure 2-2 shows the skull of an early H. erectus from Africa, now called Homo ergaster ("working man"), and Figure 2-3 shows what H. ergaster might have looked like.

The intracranial volume of H. ergaster ranged from 700 to 880 cm3; it lived approximately from 1.9 to 0.6 Ma ago in Africa and knew how to use fire (Arsugava, 2001). Together with the fossil remains, stone hand axes and knives are found, but over the course of millions of years the tools have not improved. There is some doubt that H. ergaster originated in Africa, as it does not appear to have had an immediate ancestor there (Dennell, 2005).

An almost complete skeleton of H. ergaster, the "Naryokotome boy" (also called "Turkan boy"), was found in Africa at Nariokotome in Kenya. He lived about 1.8 million years ago. When he died, he was only about 10 years old, he was about 1.5 m tall and should have reached about 1.8 m in adulthood. Unlike early hominins, he could swing his arms while walking or running.

Homo erectus

Homo erectus ("upright man"), who lived mainly in Africa, Southern Europe, Southwest Asia (Middle East), Southeast Asia and even on some Pacific islands, used fire and systematically made tools. Its most ancient bones are almost 2 million years old, and it has not yet become extinct 27,000 years ago and lived on the isolated Indonesian island of Java (and possibly even more recently, as we will see below).

The term Homo erectus is used quite broadly and sometimes includes some of the predecessor species that may be considered early erectus. Like H. habilis, its face had a protruding, chinless lower jaw with large molars, massive brow ridges, and a long, low, and thick (about 1.3 cm) skull. But H. erectus was taller than its predecessors and had a larger brain (750 - 1225 cm), smaller fangs, and smaller less protruding jaws, shorter arms and an external nose. The cover of the English-language edition of this book depicts (certainly minus the suit, tie and glasses) the possible appearance of a tropical erectus.

The I-and-A theory says that it was the African erectus that became modern man, and then the races arose, so that the Hs species (and Hss subspecies) arose before the races. The multiregional theory postulates that there were races of Asian and African erectus, and both evolved into modern humans, so that the races predated the appearance of the Hs species. And in this book it is stated that races arose before the appearance of erectus, since the time of Australopithecus, so that the appearance of races preceded the appearance of the genus Homo.

Homo georgicus

Figure 2–4 shows the front and side of the skull of an early European erectus classified as Homo georgicus. Fossils dating back to about 1.8 million years, including three partially preserved skulls and three lower jaws, were discovered near the city of Dmanisi in Georgia. H. georgicus was similar to H. habilis, H.

ergaster and erectus found in Africa, but was somewhat more graceful.

The volume of the skulls of H. georgicus varies from 600 to 800 cm. The height, estimated from the size of the foot bones, should have been about 1.5 m, and the weight was about 50 kg, i.e., it was lower but heavier than the samples from Africa described above because he lived in a relatively cool climate. Note the large teeth (especially the large, very primitive canines), the sloping forehead, the heavy brow ridges, the protruding jaw, the lack of a protruding nose, and the bulge ("occiput") at the back of the skull. H. georgicus could be the progenitor of African and Asian erectus (Lordkipanidze, 2006), and the predecessor of H. georgicus could be the ancestor of African H. ergaster and H.

Homo antecessor

Homo antecessor ("Man antecedent") has been found in caves in the Atapuerca Mountains of northern Spain, along with tools, and has been dated to between 857,000 and 780,000 years old (Bermiidez de Castro, 1997). The remains are fragmentary, but similar to the "boy from Nariokotome" (Fig. 2-2 and 2-3). The bones bear clear signs of cannibalism. H. antecessor had a powerful skull with a bulge at the back of the head, a low forehead, and a massive lower jaw without a chin; intracranial volume ranged from 1000 to 1150 cm. His height was from 1.68 to 1.83 m, and the weight of a man was approximately 90 kg. The ascending lineage of H. antecessor is not clear, it may have been a dead end lineage, or its lineage leads to Heidelberg man and Neanderthals.

Heidelberg Man Scientists have difficulty classifying many humanoid fossils between 800,000 and 200,000 years old because they are not as primitive as H. erectus but still do not belong to modern humans, yet they somehow succeeded reach Northern England about 700,000 years ago (Parfitt, 2005). Gradually, the name Homo heidelbergensis - "Heidelberg man" was assigned to them.

The intracranial volume in Heidelberg man is larger than erectus, but still smaller than modern humans, averaging 1200 cm, and its skull is more rounded than erectus. Its skeleton and teeth are not as powerful as those of erectus, but more powerful than those of modern humans. Many specimens still have large brow ridges and no chin. Figure 2-5 shows a 450,000-year-old skull found in the Arago Cave near Tautavel Castle in France.

He was a young man about 1.65 m tall, with an intracranial volume of 1150 cm. Note the sloping forehead and rectangular eye sockets. Heidelberg Man had many Neanderthal-like features, such as a broad face, heavy brow ridges, and a protruding mandible, suggesting that Neanderthals evolved from European Heidelberg Man, which in turn may have been a descendant of H. georgicus.

Neanderthals

Neanderthals, Homo neanderthalensis, lived between 350,000 and 24,500 years ago (Findlayson, 2006) throughout Europe and the Middle East, but unlike Heidelberg man, Neanderthal remains have not yet been found in Africa. Initially, Neanderthals lived in the cold North; they migrated to more southerly latitudes (eg Portugal, Israel) only during the Ice Age. Figures 2–6 and 2–7 show two specimens of Neanderthal skulls.

Note the larger and rounder skull sockets in Figure 2-6. The average intracranial volume of Neanderthals was approximately 1450 cm3, slightly larger than that of modern humans. This may have been due to greater body mass rather than higher intelligence (Lee, 2003; Ruff, 1977). The skull of Neanderthals is longer and lower than that of modern humans, with a distinct bulge at the back of the occiput ("occiput"). Neanderthals, like erectus, had a sloping forehead and a protruding lower jaw.

The middle of the face also protruded, a feature not found in H. erectus and H. sapiens, which may have been an adaptation to cold climates, or rather a partially preserved Simian prognathism. There is a supraorbital ridge without a hollow in the middle, giving the face a gloomy expression; the chin is just beginning to appear.

Their short, barrel-shaped chest, short arms, fingers, and feet were an adaptation to the cold. In view of the lack sunlight in the North, they must have had fair skin (Arsuaga, 2001, p. 75), although they may have been hairy. The average height of a man was about 168 cm.

The bones of Neanderthals are thick and heavy, and show signs of having powerful musculature attached to them, so they were extremely strong by today's standards. Western European Neanderthals (sometimes referred to as "classical Neanderthals") usually have stronger skeletons than those found elsewhere (Trinkaus, 1979; Gore, 1996). Together with the remains, a large number of tools and weapons are found, more advanced than those of Homo erectus. A significant amount of animal bones suggests that Neanderthals were hunters par excellence.

Neanderthals were the first people known to have buried their dead; the oldest known burial dates back to about 100,000 years. We will return to Neanderthals in Chapter 25.

Archaic Man and Modern Man

The archaic man, Hs, appeared about 200,000 years ago, and the modern anthropological type, Hss, about 160,000 years ago. The volume of the brain of a modern person averages about 1.350 cm. The forehead rises sharply, the superciliary arches are small or more often absent, the chin protrudes with a cleft in the middle, the teeth are small, the skeleton is gracile (light bones). Even during the last 100,000 years, a trend can be traced towards a decrease in molars and a decrease in the massiveness of the Hss skeleton. In comparison with the modern population of Eurasia, people who lived 30,000 years ago were 20-30% more massive, and about 10,000 years ago, 10% more massive. Populations with the longest experience of food processing (eg thermal processing) have the smallest teeth (Brace, 1983).

Cro-Magnons

Cro-Magnons are the immediate predecessors of modern Caucasians. They lived in Europe in the period from about 40,000 to 10,000 years ago. They were somewhat heavier than modern Caucasians, and, like Neanderthals, their brains were larger (about 4%) than modern Caucasians, although their skulls were thicker with more massive superciliary ridges (Howells, 1948, p. 186). With the advent of the Cro-Magnons, the set of tools becomes much more perfect. More materials began to be used, such as bone and horn. Specialized tools were used to make clothes, sculptures and engravings. Fine arts appear in the form of decorated tools, beads, bone carvings of humans and animals, clay figurines, musical instruments, and spectacular paintings on cave walls (Fig. 15-1a, 15-1b, 25-3) (Leakey, 1994) .

Figure 2–8 shows a Cro-Magnon skull. This 30,000-year-old Cro-Magnon skull was found in Les Eyzys, France, and is quite modern. The skull has features unique to modern humans, including a rounded cranial vault and a nearly vertical forehead. The superciliary ridges are small, the jaw does not protrude significantly forward. Note that the eye sockets are slightly slanted and flatter than in other fossil skulls; it is possibly an adaptation to protect the eyes from the cold. The flattening of the eye sockets seen on some skulls from North Africa may be the result of Cro-Magnon migration there during the Ice Age.

Figure 2-9 is a graph that gives the reader some idea of the known duration of existence of the human species discussed above.

CHAPTER 3 DNA In addition to solving the question of crime television series "Who did it," DNA will be useful in finding out "Who fathered whom." It works like this.

All humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, making a total of 46 chromosomes. A person receives one set of 23 chromosomes from the mother, and the remaining 23 from the father. Each of the 23 paternal chromosomes has a matching chromosome from the maternal set. Each chromosome is made up of a long strand of DNA wrapped around proteins called histones. Histones "unwind" DNA, making it possible to read it, they are inherited along with chromosomes (Segal, 2006).

The DNA chain is made up of units called nucleotides. It is organized like a computer program code (…011000101…), but instead of zeros and ones it contains four nitrogenous bases, denoted by the first letters of their chemical names as A, C, G and T (…ATTGCATTCA…). A genome is a segment of a DNA strand that “encodes” a polypeptide, which is a string of chemically linked amino acids. The sequence of nucleotide bases in the protein-coding portion of DNA (the exon) determines which polypeptide will be synthesized. Combining different polypeptides gives different proteins. (see Appendix - DNA). Proteins and other substances combine to form various traits that form the phenotype.

Only less than 2% of the genome is used for the synthesis of proteins necessary for the life of an organism.

All people have the same genes, but not the same forms of those genes. To clarify: we all have the EYC3 gene that determines eye color, but one sequence of nucleotides in it gives blue eyes, and the other gives brown. Each type of gene that differs in the sequence of nucleotides is called an allele. In some populations, a gene can be represented by only one allele, i.e.

all individuals have the same nucleotide sequence in this gene and the same phenotypic trait; such an allele is called "fixed". In other populations, several alleles may be present, some may be very rare. Some alleles are very favorable and give the individual very useful traits, such as high intelligence, athletic ability, or attractiveness. appearance, while others can be lethal or fitness-reducing. Each gene has an average of 14 different alleles.

In addition, DNA contains regulators (“epigenome”) that determine whether or not a certain DNA region will be read (Cropley, 2006). The epigenome of different people is also different and is inherited along with the chromosomes. Putting all this together, it is clear that with the exception of identical twins, it is almost impossible to find two genetically identical people, and even identical twins, i.e. twins with the same DNA sequence, will differ slightly in their epigenomes (Fraga, 2005).

And, wait, things get even more complicated. If two alleles have different nucleotide sequences, they may still code for the same polypeptides (i.e., the two alleles are "synonymous") or different polypeptides (i.e., they are "not synonymous") (see.

Application - DNA). Each single nucleotide change, such as "A" instead of "T", is called a "single nucleotide polymorphism" (SNP). The difference between "A" and "T" can only be whether it is more difficult or easier for the cell to get "A" instead of "T", or whether the difference can be beneficial, unfavorable, or even destructive.

In very rare cases, a return to the past (atavism) occurs, and gene regulators turn on genes in a person that have been turned off for a long time in the rest (LePage, 2007).

Figure 3-1 shows Atso Basu, "discovered" in 1936 in the Daddes Valley near Basu, Morocco, where the native white population is hybridized with blacks. If he is a manifestation of atavism, he must have exhibited some primitive features of whites and/or blacks, along with those of a mulatto. Some experts believe that Basu was microcephalic (i.e., had a genetic defect that caused him to develop a small brain), but apart from his head, his external anatomy was otherwise normal. (Fellow villagers did not allow an examination of his body after death.) His behavior, in addition to its primitiveness, also generally did not indicate microcephaly.

“His arms are so long that when he stands straight, his fingers go down below his knees, massive brow ridges over his eyes and a strongly sloping forehead, jaws, teeth, chin, cheekbones - everything shows ape-like signs. He sleeps in the trees and lives there, eating berries and insects. He does not wear any clothes (although he was persuaded to put on burlap for the photograph here). He does not use any tools, and his speech is only a lowing (National Vanguard, no. 44, 1976).

New alleles in a population may appear as a result of mutation, or they may be acquired by interbreeding with another population that already has them. If a new allele increases reproductive success, it will spread through the population; if it decreases it, it will disappear along with its carriers. Almost all new alleles are detrimental, since over the millions of years of existence of the species, almost all possible alleles have already appeared in the gene pool of the population sooner or later. Since favorable alleles, once introduced, are usually retained in the gene pool, very few new beneficial alleles can appear and spread in the gene pool. Although unfavorable alleles are removed from the gene pool, they can reappear over and over again. (And alleles that are unfavorable in one environment may turn out to be useful many years later when the population finds itself in another environment or evolves in a different direction.) contributes to their loss (since people with unique alleles, even if they are not harmful, die without leaving offspring). An example is the loss of alleles that occurred in Eurasia due to the enormous mortality during the Ice Age. Barring such catastrophes, the allele that increases reproductive success is unlikely to be lost. Indeed, if an allele is widespread in a population, it is safe to conclude that it increases the population's reproductive success in that habitat. However, an allele that is rare over a period of time either does not increase reproductive success or increases it at low prevalence and becomes deleterious at high prevalence.

Since populations can both gain and lose alleles, and alleles favorable in one environment can be detrimental in another, determining the origin of different populations by studying the prevalence of certain alleles in them can be unreliable.

Suppose population A has a large number of alleles, for example, an average of 20 alleles per gene, while population B has few alleles per gene, suppose only 5 on average, and these 5 are also in population A. So is that population A is older? Not necessarily, since population A may have acquired these alleles through interbreeding with other populations, and not through mutations over a long period of time. Also, population B may be older, but it could experience a catastrophic loss in its numbers, which wiped out most of its accumulated alleles.

Similarly, if population A has ancient alleles that are absent in population B, it cannot be concluded that population B is represented by descendants of population A that have lost ancient alleles.

Population A can have ancient alleles only because it remained in the same fairly stable environment and did not evolve to the same extent as population B, which moved to a completely different environment. Also, ancient alleles could penetrate into population A due to interbreeding with representatives of population B, which has ancient alleles.

All DNA of any plant or animal has the same basic structure (see Appendix - DNA). All animals that have a nucleus in their cells (eukaryotes, that is, all living organisms, with the exception of bacteria, blue-green algae and viruses), have two types of DNA: nuclear DNA (nuclear DNA) and mitochondrial DNA (mitochondrial DNA, or mtDNA). Mitochondria, the remnants of bacteria captured by cells billions of years ago, produce energy for the cell. The captured bacteria helped the cells survive, which is why their DNA is still there. Later, part of the mtDNA moved into the nucleus and became nuclear DNA.

There are several significant differences between nuclear and mtDNA. Nuclear DNA exists in the form double helix, the twisted ladder of which, on the one hand, is represented by the base A, connected by hydrogen bonds to the base T of the other side, or the base C, connected to the base G. One strand is a "sense" (or "matrix") and is read during the synthesis of the polypeptide, and the other " anti-sense" (or "non-coding") complementary copy of it. Nuclear DNA is a double-stranded helix with two free ends; mtDNA exists as a (usually) single-stranded ring that breaks only when it is read. Each cell contains only two copies of each strand of nuclear DNA, one maternal and one paternal, and usually thousands of mtDNA copies almost always maternal alone. Human nuclear DNA contains over 3 million base pairs and 20,488 genes, while mtDNA contains only 16,569 base pairs and 37 genes.

Nuclear DNA is located in 23 pairs of chromosomes, mtDNA does not form chromosomes. Nuclear DNA contains several enzyme systems capable of repairing chemical damage and breakage of DNA molecules that occur during normal DNA biosynthesis or as a result of exposure to physical or chemical agents; mtDNA does not have such systems; therefore, errors accumulate in it 20 times faster than in nuclear DNA (Sykes, 2001, p. 55). Nuclear DNA mutates at a rate of one percent per billion cell divisions; mtDNA mutates about 10 times faster than nuclear DNA (Patterson, 1999, p. 152). There are two types of nuclear DNA: "exons" - DNA that codes for polypeptides ("genes") and "introns" ("junk" or "excess" DNA) - DNA that does not code for polypeptides. mtDNA does not contain introns, it codes for RNA for mitochondrial polypeptides (RNA has the same primary structure as DNA, but thymine (“T”) is replaced by uracil (“U”) in it, and deoxyribose is replaced by ribose (see Appendix - DNA.) Almost all racial differences are encoded in DNA; only very rarely does mtDNA determine racial traits, such as breathing at high altitudes or when running long distances, and metabolic advantages in Arctic peoples.

The main difference between these two types of DNA in terms of deciphering the origin of mankind is that mtDNA is contained in the tail of the spermatozoon, and nuclear DNA is contained in its head. What does this have to do with human origins, you ask? Well, during fertilization, normally only the head of the sperm enters the egg (Schwartz, 2005, p. 194), and any mtDNA of the sperm that enters the egg is marked and destroyed. Therefore, paternal mtDNA is not normally introduced into the genome of a fertilized egg. (Sometimes some of the paternal mtDNA does slip through (Schwartz, 2002), and as a result, the fertilized egg contains both maternal and paternal mtDNA, confusing geneticists.) This means that an individual's mtDNA, whether male or female , is inherited (almost always) only from the mother. Your mtDNA, even if you're a man, comes from your mother, she from her mother, and so on.

But some of the DNA comes only from the father. Normally, both father and mother contribute half of the chromosomes to the genome of their child. Women have a pair of X chromosomes (XX), so a mother can only pass on an X chromosome to her child. Men have X and Y chromosomes (XY). If the X chromosome is passed from the father to the child, he will receive two X chromosomes and will be a girl, if the Y chromosome, the child will receive X and Y chromosomes and will be a boy. Thus, almost always, Y chromosomes come only from fathers and are inherited only by sons. This means that the DNA in the Y chromosome of a living male was received by him from his father, who received it from his father, and so on into the past.

This information is useful for forensic scientists, since a person's mtDNA will be the same as that of his mother and her other children, and a man will have the same DNA on the Y chromosome as his father and the latter's other sons, but it will also be useful, as we shall see, also for paleoanthropologists.

Chapter 4 Evolution "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."

Theodosis Dobzhansky, Geneticist Although about half of Americans and Britons do not believe in evolution, especially that humans and today's great apes evolved from a common ancestor believed to have lived between about 8 and 4.5 million years ago, all scientific theories of human origin postulate this from the very beginning. The purpose of this book is not to debate creationism or intelligent design, but only to present the theory of evolution as scientists understand it.

Since this great separation, the human and ape lineages have diverged genetically, culturally, and intellectually to such an extent that the gulf between us has grown to such an extent that one might wonder if we were ever one species. But we were. The genetic maps of chimpanzees and humans each contain approximately 3 billion genetic units (base pairs). When they were compared, only about 40 million units were different. We are, therefore, genetically 1.3% "non-chimpanzee" but 98.7% "chimpanzee", and men and women differ even less. Small differences in genetic maps (genotypes), however, can lead, as we shall see, to colossal differences in individual traits (phenotypes) of living organisms.

Biologists use the term "evolution" to answer two different questions: (1) "Have species changed over time?" and (2) "If they did, what made them change?"

The first question is a statement of fact. There is so much evidence of species changing over time that scientists answer the question, "Yes, there is no doubt that evolution has occurred." The second question requires an explanation - a theory that would describe the mechanisms that caused these changes. The only theory What scientists consider to be sound is Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, now called "neo-Darwinism" because it was confirmed and supported by genetics.

As creationists are fond of pointing out, theories can always be refuted, and certainly neo-Darwinism can be refuted. Indeed, there are all kinds of potential evidence to refute neo-Darwinism, such as dinosaur bones only thousands of years old, or fossils in layers older than those that contain the remains of their predecessors. But so far there is no evidence that rejects the theory, and there are a lot of facts that are consistent with it.
Darwin's theory can be expressed as a syllogism:

Premises: If an individual in a population has specific traits that (1) are inherited;

(2) differ between individuals (3) and cause differences in reproductive success in individuals with or without them, then:

Conclusion: the frequency of specific traits that provide greater reproductive success will increase in the population.

There are only two ways to make sure that a syllogism can be "wrong": (1) if it is shown to be irrelevant because the premises do not apply to a certain population, that is, that all individuals in the population have the same specific features, and if these traits are different, that they are not heritable, or, if they are different and heritable, they do not affect reproductive success; (2) if we show that the conclusion does not follow from the premises. But given that individuals in a population have such specific traits, and they are present in all populations, with the possible exception of laboratory animals (i.e., clones and animals kept under special conditions), such a conclusion must be drawn.

Specific traits that increase reproductive success are transmitted with alleles encoding those traits. Only reproductive success determines whose lineage will continue and whose lineage will be cut off.

Note that this syllogism requires that there be individuals in the population who have heritable traits that differ in their contribution to reproductive success. This means that evolution cannot occur if all individuals in a population have the same inherited traits. In other words, genetic equality, egalitarianism, makes evolution impossible. And without the ability to evolve, biological species can only die out with changes in the habitat that inevitably occur.
Generalization vs. Specialization

In this book, survival strategies through generalization and specialization play a major role in deciphering human evolution. Biological species, individuals or groups of individuals are more generalized if they are able to perform more functions, and less specialized if they are limited to a smaller set of functions. Species are more specialized if they have evolved anatomically (and/or physiologically) to better exploit a particular ecological niche, such as food resources, territory, or reproductive strategy.
Humans are omnivorous, feed on a wide variety of plants and animals and are distributed throughout the planet, they have mastered the underwater and air environments, the poles and even outer space, so they are by far the most universalized species. Our feet, however, have become specialized because they have lost the ability to grasp objects (although my ex-wife is able to lift objects with her big toe), but they are superbly adapted for bipedal walking, unlike the feet of large apes, which are able to grasp branches, but are poorly adapted for such walking (Fig. 4-1).

The human hand is so versatile that it can thread a needle, brandish a club, or play the piano. Compare our hands with the specialized paws of a Madagascar bat baby (Figure 4-2). This animal, one of the early primates, sticks the middle toe of its forepaw into termite mounds, then pulls it out and eats the nasty termites that have clung to it.

As in many other cases in biology, there is a trade-off between generalization and specialization. Generalized views are like a Swiss army knife - they can do a lot of things, but none of them are as good as a specialized tool. Anatomically universalized species suffer less from habitat changes, as they can live in a variety of environments. Specialized species, on the other hand, are able to make full use of a particular environment, but when that environment changes, they disappear with it. If suddenly an epidemic destroys termites, the long fingers of the little arm shown in Figure 4-2 will become a burden to it. Specialized species invest all their resources in one niche, generalized species diversify their investments.

Man, like other animals, is not free from this trade-off dependence - we cannot be both specialized and universalized at the same time, but for the most part we remain universalized. But unlike other animals, we discovered more effective method handle almost any task. Anatomy (and physiology) does not allow us to run as fast as a cheetah, swim as efficiently as a dolphin, jump as high as a grasshopper, or fly as acrobatic as a hummingbird, but we can outdo any animal in almost any activities with our technology. Anatomically we are universalized, but technologically we are capable of narrow specialization. Perhaps paradoxically, the more adept we become at using technology to enhance our natural abilities, the more “human” we become, as this is the main difference between us and all other species. But unlike anatomically more specialized species, our technological specializations make us less likely to disappear from the face of the earth when habitat changes.
Rules of Evolution

Unraveling the history of human evolution is like trying to put together a puzzle of a thousand pieces with only ten in place. But since there are certain rules that determine where which pieces may or may not be placed, it can still be assembled by focusing on their straight edges and colors even when there are no adjacent pieces. Similarly, there are rules that limit evolution, including human evolution.

Evolution, insofar as it occurs over vast periods of time among vast numbers of individuals, is not as haphazard or random ("genetic drift") as is commonly portrayed. random events favorable and unfavorable certainly occur, but over time and as the number of individuals increases, the significance of such events decreases. As a result, evolution follows the rules as logically as the evolutionary syllogism itself is logical. Not in every case, of course, but often enough that these rules can be relied upon.

Here are a few rules that will be used to explain human evolution:
1. Evolution is cumulative. The gene pool of a population, altered by mutations, individual deaths, and individual differences in reproductive success, is passed on to the next generation, where it undergoes additional changes, and so on (Barkow, 1991, p. 83). Thus, evolution is carried out by changing what is already there; evolution is not God, and does not create, and cannot create a biological species from scratch. If the environment changes, individuals can only change what they already have, but if they fail to do this in the course of adapting to new environmental conditions, they die out. For this reason, genomes are becoming more and more like the inventions of Ruby Goldberg, rather than masterpieces of intelligent design. This is one of the reasons why biochemistry is so complex.

McLean's triune brain theory is a good example of the additive nature of evolution. The reptilian brain (brain stem) that appeared 500 million years ago was joined by the limbic system of lower mammals (the amygdala and hippocampus) about 200 million years ago, and then the neocortex (outer part of the brain) of higher mammals about 500,000 years ago (Fig. 4-3 ) .

Another good illustration of this rule is the biogenetic law, in its original formulation it sounds like “the individual development of an individual (ontogeny) is a repetition (recapitulation) of the most important stages in the evolution of a species (phylogenesis)”, but more precisely:

"The stages of fetal development repeat the embryonic stages of the evolutionary development of ancestors"

(Schwartz, 2005, pp. 55–56). In other words, the later stages of embryonic development arose as a result of the addition of additional stages to more early stages its development.

The additive nature of evolution suggests that organisms almost always become more complex, and indeed this is the case (Adamowicz, 2008). It also implies that organisms, at every stage of their evolutionary path, must possess traits that ensure their reproductive success. In other words, A can evolve into B only if organisms in all stages between A and B survive and reproduce. To paraphrase the "law of conservation", this would mean that useless genetic material accumulates in the genome and is removed only when its carrier dies without leaving any offspring. The genome lacks the "Empty Trashcan" feature.
2. Addition is easier than subtraction. As in government bureaucracy, the evolution of new traits will be more likely to be by adding alleles, copies, and rules to the existing genome than by removing them. A new trait may appear when a new allele is expressed, or when a gene is copied or expressed under the influence of regulators. If a new trait increases reproductive success, it will spread through the population.

The loss of a trait, on the other hand, means that a previously useful trait has become burdensome, and after its disappearance, the ecological niche is used more efficiently. Fish trapped in a cave can no longer use the Sunshine Niche, so the eyes become a waste of resources, and individuals that put less resources into the eyes now have an advantage. Ultimately, cave fish become blind.

New traits arise through modification of an organism's alleles, such as DNA mutations or step-by-step adjustment of regulators. Each of these tiny changes will usually only provide a small, if any, improvement. But getting rid of a trait means destroying all of its modifications, and each step backwards should produce only a small improvement in terms of natural selection, or maybe not. Knocking out a key allele may cause the trait it encodes to disappear, but other alleles and regulators may have changed and been selected because they favor the expression of the key allele, but they are likely to remain unchanged, producing useless, now harmful, polypeptides.

When a daughter population separates from its parent population and develops a new ecological niche, it, as a rule, acquires new features that make it easier for it to develop this new niche. Meanwhile, the parent population does not acquire these new traits, but instead acquires other traits useful in the old niche that the daughter population does not acquire. When a new niche disappears, new traits become burdensome, and the daughter population cannot successfully compete with the parent population in the old niche.

Once landed, fish cannot become the fish they evolved from again if the land suddenly disappears.
3. Universalization specialization extinction. A generalized population tends to evolve towards specialization, but not vice versa (Howells, 1948). A population becomes more specialized if its traits evolve anatomically or physiologically to better perform an already existing function. Thus, specialization requires changing what is already present, but not returning to the previous state. But, according to Rule 2, it is easier to add an allele or regulator of an allele, which gives a new phenotype, than to lose an allele or change its regulator so as to return to the old phenotype. This rule means that evolution proceeds predominantly in one direction and ends with the extinction of the species when the habitat changes and specialization becomes burdensome. Although specialized populations can evolve from other specialized populations, and generalized populations from generalized populations, the prevailing direction of evolution from generalization to specialization suggests that generalized populations will be the source of most evolutionary changes.

If the habitat changes, as it does sooner or later, then one or more features of the generalized species will help it perform functions that the specialized species cannot perform as well. These features will prove useful in a new environment;

specialized species will remain with features that help them perform well only one or a few functions. If the niche to which a specialized species has been adapted becomes less accessible, the species may become more generalized only by becoming less efficient in exploiting that niche, leading to their rapid extinction.

There are several ways for a population to get around this rule and become more generalized.

The embryo is less structured than the adult, and if the adults of a species become embryonic (see Neoteny, Chapter 6), the species becomes more generalized. Neoteny played important role in the transformation of man into a more universalized species, thereby becoming able to migrate from regions with a warm climate. A population can also acquire traits that make it more generalized than its parent by interbreeding with a more generalized population.

Specialized species can become more universalized, partially changing their behavior, and use the available characters in a different way (exaptation). For example, a fish can walk on its fins while still using them for swimming, and evolve to better walk on its fins while still being able to use them for swimming, although it won't do both as well as if it only walked or just swam.

Likewise, a part of an existing structure may remain unchanged, retaining its normal function, while a part of the same structure evolves and takes on a different function. For example, the retina of the eye retained some of the rods responsible for black and white vision, while other rods evolved into cones responsible for color vision. Fewer rods means less black and white vision, but that price has been paid for color vision. The retina has become more versatile than it was originally.
4.Specialized populations evolve in a stable environment; universalized populations in the changing. If the habitat is stable, the population will specialize to use its ecological niche, gaining an advantage over a population that remains generalized, at least in that niche, since individuals will be selected for traits that ensure more efficient use of that particular niche. The individuals of any population vary in their degree of specialization, and if you plot the degree of specialization against the number of individuals in question, it will approximate a normal distribution curve. In a more specialized population, the mean of this curve will be higher and its standard deviation smaller (Rule 5).

The longer environmental conditions are constant (and the population is forced to evolve towards equilibrium longer - Rule 10), the higher will be the ratio of specialized and generalized populations living in this environment. On the contrary, in a changing environment, such as seasonal climate, it will be easier for universalized species to evolve (New Scientist, Apr. 21, 2007, p. 21). Since the climate in the tropics and polar zones is more stable than the seasonal climate, populations living in these regions will be more specialized than populations living in the seasonal climate zone. A species whose range includes both changing and stable environments can be divided into generalized individuals living in a changing environment and more specialized individuals living in a stable environment. Thus, two kinds will develop.

According to Rule 3, a generalized population is more likely to evolve from another generalized population in the temperate zone than a specialized population from a specialized population in the tropics or the polar zone, and then migrate to the temperate zone, where it becomes generalized. And the stronger the evolutionary changes, the fairer this rule.
5. In a specialized population hereditary variability less than in the universalized one. Individuals in a specialized population whose traits deviate from the optimum for that population are more likely to be selected for selection compared to individuals in a generalized population who exhibit such deviations, because the specialized population lives in a more stable environment (Rule 4). Thus, the evolution of the most universalized species, such as humans, was more likely to have taken place in the variable temperate zone than in the tropics. Humans are often described as a tropical species because, for example, they sweat to cool their bodies and cannot survive (naked) in cold weather. In fact, they are so universalized in comparison with other species that it suggests (although their ancestry stretches from a warm climate) that they were or became universalized at a certain stage in their evolution.
Gases (hereinafter referred to as LPG) located on an independent area, and from administrative, domestic, industrial buildings, boiler houses, garages according to the data given in brackets, but not less than those established ... "Automated copy 586_471859 Arbitration Court Russian Federation No. 17312/12 Moscow May 14, 2013 The Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation, consisting of: presiding - the Chairman of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation ... "

“1 Fundamentals of a healthy lifestyle. Grade 4 1. Explanatory note. The work program of the subject "Fundamentals of a Healthy Lifestyle" for the 4th grade of MBOU-SOSH No. 3 of Arkadaka was developed in accordance with the main provisions of the Federal State Education ... "

«EVALUATION OF THE IMPACT OF THE MATERIAL CAPITAL POLICY IN RUSSIA * FABIAN SLONIMCHIK, ANNA YURKO For a long time, the birth rate in Russia has been below the population replacement level. Since 2007, the Government of the Russian Federation has been pursuing an active policy to encourage the birth rate. Women who have given birth...
Mark B, BM per ton of seeds. Seed treatment before sowing at the rate of consumption of the working solution - 10 l / t of seeds. Recommended...” “Company”, or “Issuer”, or “JSC Cherkizovo Group”) securities in respect of which the prospectus is being registered: type: shares; kat ... "for years there has been a sharp and unstoppable political and ideological struggle. First of all...” “Sberbank of Russia” on the territory of the Republic of Karelia (valid since...” 1:298:316.7; 371.2 (09) BBK 87 B64 Recommended for printing by the Academic Council of Zhytomyr state university named after Ivan Franko (minutes No. 9 of 25 ... "Digest of Russian and foreign private law news (Issue No. 21 - June August 2014) Issue No. 21 (June-August 2014) Digest of Russian and foreign private law news / for June August 2014 / Message from the Managing Editor: Dear readers of the Digest, the summer is over, and...»

“Explanatory note. The program on the subject “Drawing with elements of computer graphics” for the 9th grade was compiled on the basis of regulatory documents: the Law “On Education in the Russian Federation” No. 273 FZ of December 29, 2012. Standards of basic general education. Os...»

Pereslavl Local History Initiative. - Theme: education. - No. 2189. Report of the Board of the Society for Assistance to Needy Students of the Pereslavl Theological School for 1894 In the reporting year of 1894, the Society ... "

2017 www.site - "Free digital library- different materials"
The materials of this site are posted for review, all rights belong to their authors.
If you do not agree that your material is posted on this site, please write to us, we will remove it within 1-2 business days.

Current page: 1 (total book has 34 pages) [accessible reading excerpt: 23 pages]

Richard D. Ferle
Erectus roams between us. Conquest of the white race
« erectus Walks Among Us. The evolution of modern humans" by Richard D. Fuerle

Vladimir Avdeev
The Conspiracy Anthropology of Richard Ferlet
"Anthropology is one of those rare sciences that only a few professors can privatize."

Fritz Lenz, German racial theorist

"If my theory does not agree with the facts, then so much the worse for the facts."

G.W.F. Hegel

Contrary to public opinion, widely disseminated by the media, in modern science there is no single stable idea about the origin of the human race. New discoveries in genetics and paleontology seem to raise more questions than they answer. Representatives of modern anthropological science, interpreting the secrets of our origin, are entangled in the principles of guild solidarity, like a medieval corporation of alchemists, and belonging to one camp or another can cost a person, if not life, as in the days of Giordano Bruno, then, in any case, reputation and social status . The right to own the history of the human race is a truly invaluable information resource, which is why the battles around it in the academic environment do not subside. Science today is a matter of great finance and prestige, and every political regime is doing its best to improve its image by patronizing scientists and giving the impression of general concern with theoretical problems that are actually controlled by only a few people. Those who own the past of mankind will be able to take possession of its future, so you need to have great courage to challenge the big businessmen from science, including in this most important area.

Among such restless and "uncomfortable" truth-seekers is the modern American scientist Richard Furle Richard Fuerle author of the book "Erectus wanders between us", which made a splash in the West. This fundamental work on almost the entire set of modern data affecting the problem of the evolution of man and his races fully reflects the severity of discussions in the scientific community, as well as the degree of interest of biased circles of politicians, jurists and representatives of the mass media.

Richard Ferlet is a classic example of a "free thinker". And if in the modern Russian understanding this definition has rather a negative meaning, implying dilettantism and "knowing" of an amateur philosopher, then the situation is completely different in the Anglo-Saxon tradition, where a free thinker is primarily a high-level professional who personally bears the burden of economic and social responsibility for fruits of their intellectual activity. This is a man of mental labor, he pays for everything according to the bills, reports only to his conscience, the canons of science and is not subject to the whiffs of the political situation.

Richard Ferle does not live in an “ivory tower”, but on a small island near New York, surrounded by pristine nature, and, despite his mature age, calls himself an eternal student, as he combines a relentless craving for self-improvement with studying at prestigious educational institutions . He holds a bachelor's degree in mathematics, physics, chemistry, a master's degree in economics, and a doctorate in law. It is this wide range of knowledge that allowed Ferlet to work as a patent examiner for a long time, and, like no one else, he knows how insidious and sometimes illusory the boundary separating science and jurisprudence, without which the functioning of modern society today is simply unthinkable. Over the long years of his career, having seen enough of the intrigues and machinations that are happening at this “border crossing”, as befits a true free thinker, he decided to independently analyze the key problem of the evolution of mankind and its races, clearly showing that there is a place for smuggling in science. Thus was born his book, which has already been reprinted several times.

However, Richard Ferle's talents are not limited to this, for he is an amateur composer, as well as the author of monographs on the Austrian economy, natural law and the theory of anarchism.

Fully aware of the scale of the task, the scientist begins the preface with philosophical discussions about the system of values in science, emphasizing that the so-called "pure science" is a myth. The main problem is the dialogue between representatives of polar opposite views on the theory of evolution of human races. According to the author, the generalization of these data is "exciting material", since "fraud in anthropology has become the norm." The times of free disputes have long since sunk into oblivion, and the entire Western world is literally entangled in the snares of the "equality police", spreading everywhere the norms of egalitarianism, comparable to the bacilli of the "intellectual plague".

The main conspiracy secret of the origin of the human races, according to Ferlet, is that there really is no secret, but there is a secret of the origin of those who create this secret with enviable regularity. As the need to figure out who needs it and benefits, the author formulates the task of his work with the typical meticulousness of a patent expert. Ferlet skillfully builds a logical chain based on the basic data of archeology, genetics, the general theory of evolution, the evolutionary theory of sex, psychology, leading us to the conclusion that the emergence of human races is due to the entire course of the organic development of nature: “The races arose before the appearance of erectus, from the time of Australopithecus that is, the appearance of races preceded the appearance of the genus Homo. From the standpoint of Darwin's general theory of evolution, "the frequency of specific traits that provide greater reproductive success will increase in populations."

Thus, the increase in the concentration of racial traits and, as a consequence of the evolutionary isolation of races, is a natural path for the organic development of nature. Biological differences are the main driver in the struggle for the survival of species - this is the root of Darwin's theory. “In other words, genetic equality, egalitarianism makes evolution impossible. And without the ability to evolve, biological species can only die out with changes in the habitat that inevitably occur.

The ecological niche in which a race develops inevitably shapes its specialization. On the basis of data from archeology, cultural history, genetics and the theory of behavior, Ferlet illustrates the correctness of his arguments, which confirm the general theory of evolution. Natural selection created traits and fixed them hereditarily, which contributed to the development of races.

These natural scientific conclusions lead to the fact that the theory of the origin of modern humans from Africa is untenable and openly politically biased, since “the genetic differences between Africans and Europeans are so pronounced that the proportion of European admixture in Africans can be determined at an error level of only 0 .02".

Ferlet considers and systematizes in great detail the main differences between races at the morphological and then genetic level, clearly demonstrating the degree of remoteness of the main racial trunks from each other and the level of specialization of representatives of modern races. The morphological development of the brain is directly related to the IQ, which, in turn, determines the specifics of human behavior and its civilizational abilities. Altruistic tendencies, criminal tendencies, and sexual behavior patterns are also functional outcomes of brain development. The specificity of sexual-marital relations clearly indicates where it is necessary to look for the centers of the emergence of races. “Pairing was an important step towards humanization, and since it is less characteristic of Africans, this trait did not originate in Africa, and the population that embarked on the path of humanization was not African. If we talk about the donation of money, blood or human organs, then Europeans are much more generous than representatives of other races, and they show this generosity regardless of whether the person in need is their relative or not. Therefore, these fatal racial-evolutionary differences cannot be eliminated with the help of social philanthropy. “Trillions of dollars are being spent on programs aimed at closing the gap in academic achievement between whites and blacks. All these programs have failed. Geneticists identify the genes responsible for intelligence and estimate the prevalence of these genes around the world. Not surprisingly, the prevalence of such genes in Africa is much lower than in Europe or Asia. It is hard to argue that blacks are incapable of achievement because of poor education or because of racist attitudes on the part of whites if they do not have the genes necessary for learning.

Between the evolutionary morphology of the body in representatives of various races and their abilities for culture, a direct and obvious connection is thus revealed: “The primitive features include larger muscles, more developed aromatic glands, a smaller brain with less pronounced convolutions, a smaller anteroposterior and smaller frontal lobes. Less protruding nasal bones are also a primitive trait, as early hominids lacked external nasal bones; the African nose is very flat. Practically all racial differences between Africans and natives of Eurasia lie in the area of primitive traits, and if Africans generally have signs of a more perfect development than the inhabitants of Eurasia, then they are extremely few. The evidence shows a very large number of differences in bone tissue, soft tissue, physiology, behavior, intelligence, cultural achievements and genes. And, most importantly, all available data are consistent with each other. It does not happen that the genes testify to the development of blacks, and the bones testify to their primitiveness. All evidence suggests one thing: they are primitive, less evolved and closer to our anthropoid ancestors.”

With the help of these facts, gleaned from classical works on evolutionary anthropology, the author brings readers to the main thesis of his book: the modern politically tolerant concept of the origin of all human races from Africa does not stand up to criticism, because it is intensively implanted in the public consciousness by purely political methods, being in an obvious contradictions with the principles of objective science.

And this is where, in our opinion, the most interesting begins, which has led to such a massive popularity of the American scientist today, since Richard Ferlet can be presented as one of the heralds of a whole trend, which it would be appropriate to call conspiracy anthropology. For in no other way than with the help of conspiracy theory, it is impossible to explain the persistence of liberal circles, with which they are pushing the concept of the African origin of mankind to the surface of public consciousness with all their might. It should be emphasized that the term "conspiracy anthropology" is first introduced into use by the author of these lines, although the very tendency of political falsification of the history of mankind can be traced back to medieval church hierarchs. These facts of falsification are widely publicized, but attempts to appropriate the genealogical tree of mankind continue to this day, so it is extremely important to consider the methodology of modern encroachments on freedom of discussion, which is the basic principle of the existence of science. And although the days of the fires of the Inquisition have passed, the methods of modern tradition of ostracizing the authority of a scientist are still very effective. In this regard, Richard Ferlet's Erectus Walks Between Us is a very valuable tool for maintaining an atmosphere of sanity in modern society, being a kind of guide to the labyrinths of modern conspiracy anthropology. And the invaluable experience of the American scientist will serve as a kind of Ariadne's thread in this matter.

Criticizing the aforementioned fashionable hypothesis, the author rightly asks the following questions: “If a modern type of man existed in Africa 160,000 years ago, then why are today's Africans so primitive in all respects? Haven't Africans reverse-evolved from more advanced ancestors, becoming more primitive? Another question that springs to mind is why did tropical-adapted Africans leave Africa 65,000 years ago, just in the middle of the first ice age (which lasted roughly 73,000 to 55,000 years ago), when more of the cold-adapted hominids of Eurasia were moving south? And the last question: why did African erectus become sapiens, and not Asian or European ones, especially in light of the fact that the habitat in Eurasia was more selective for modern traits, and turning into Homo sapiens would give a greater advantage?

The author rightly draws attention to the fact that one of the key principles of biology is the multiregional theory of the origin of species, and asks the question, why should this rule be discarded, as Afrocentrists do when considering the origin of the human race? Such questions arise in any unbiased researcher by themselves.

Ferlet emphasizes that fundamental morphological differences in the structure of the skull and skeleton in fossil ancestors from different parts of the world arose much earlier than this supposed settlement took place. In addition, the age of these morphophysiological differences is estimated at hundreds of thousands of years and even millions. That is, on the face of a chronological inconsistency and logical inconsistencies in the concept of Afrocentrists.

Even worse, from the point of view of elementary logic, things are with this theory when we begin to analyze its chronological aspects in geographical space. “How is it possible that allegedly modern Africans could not even reach the islands off the African coast just a few thousand years ago? That the islands, even visible from Africa, have not been explored and inhabited certainly suggests that Africans were not yet developed even very recently, so it is simply ridiculous to believe that they were developed when they allegedly migrated from Africa 65,000 years back. How could modern Africans supposedly not only leave Africa and make their way through Europe and Asia, but even get to Australia and the Pacific islands, without ever reaching the islands very close to their coast? - the American scientist rightly asks.

As is known, the breeding of domestic animals and the selective cultivation of valuable varieties of plants are indispensable attributes of any phase of the development of human society. In the same way, traces of vital activity at the sites of mass migrations, scattered over the surface of the Earth, should clearly indicate the direction of movement of masses of people. But in the most striking way, it turns out that nothing of the kind has been found in Africa - the supposed cradle of mankind. One gets the impression that the progenitors of modern races simultaneously scattered over all even the most remote regions of the land from one place, leaving no traces of their temporary stay anywhere, and in the process of this magical levitation, they changed the whole complex of racial characteristics, consisting of thousands of parameters, at once and in a very diverse way, after This created completely different and dissimilar types of civilization.

Modern methods of science only exacerbate the overall picture of absurdity in the Afrocentric concept. Differences in mitochondrial DNA between Europeans, Africans and Asians arose much earlier than in the exodus from Africa. To cover this obvious mathematical casuistry, the creators of the concept even had to invent some fantastic zoological creature like a fictional character in a children's cartoon for the needs of a bored public.

"Mitochondrial Eve" - this is the metaphysical name given by the Afrocentrists to our "grandmother", who they believe lived in Africa about 150,000 years ago, from whom all living people got their mitochondrial DNA. “This 'Eva' was not the only woman, since a viable population would have to include at least a thousand married couples. According to Afrocentric ideas, all women in this population either had the same mitochondrial DNA, or, having a different mitochondrial DNA, did not have daughters.

It seems that this is already reminiscent of the tricks of card sharpers with the substitution of cards within the same suit, when a jack suddenly turns out of a six. But the wonders of the amusing "concept" do not end there, for in the framework of the modern tradition, Afrocentrists argue that the human genealogical tree, built on a computer, clearly points to the African ancestral home. And since this is calculated on a computer, then this is the ultimate truth. But Richard Ferle, himself a certified mathematician, shows that this family tree can just as well be derived from the Martians, since a computer is just a technical device that performs someone else's will according to a given program, nothing more. And it is not his fault that the will of the Afrocentrists opposes all the laws of mathematical logic. “The family tree of the Exodus from Africa theory is not a simple tree. In fact, there are over a billion such evolutionary trees. For these reasons, until technical problems are overcome, mitochondrial DNA will not be able to answer questions about either Eve's habitat or her age. If computer-generated genealogies by Afrocentrists don't prove that Eve lived in Africa, and don't even provide a reliable answer to the question of when she lived, is it possible to use mitochondrial DNA data in some other way to find out where she lived?

The American scientist also gives an impressive list of genes responsible for the morphological structure of the brain, which are present in Europeans and are completely absent in people from the African continent. This fact also confirms the impossibility of the origin of modern races from this region. Afrocentrists do not disdain frank falsification of the principles of taxonomy, resorting to the practice of double standards. The cumulative genetic distances for human races are several times greater than those for animal breeds, but at the same time, Afrocentrists argue that the human races belong to the same species, and the animal breeds mentioned belong to different ones. Where is the logic and universality of the principles of classification for all organisms in nature?

Further, the author of the book rightly draws attention to the fact that genes are grouped into gene complexes, which in turn determine racial characteristics, therefore, between the main branches of humanity, these are not only differences in gene frequencies, but also in recombinations of gene complexes, and at this level racial differences are even clearer and more tangible: “Thus, the genes responsible for light skin and hair color could not have had an initial foothold in Africa, but only in a population that lived in Eurasia and lived there long enough for all existing genes encoding light skin and hair color.

In recent decades, studies of the nuclear DNA of human populations have become widespread, and here the situation for fans of the Exodus from Africa theory is even more deplorable. “In fact, there is no plausible model for the transformation of African nuclear DNA into Caucasian and Mongoloid nuclear DNA, and there is no evidence that the population of Eurasia ever possessed any genes specific to Africans. For example, Caucasoid and Mongoloid skulls do not have features characteristic of African skulls, and traces of African-specific genes, such as curly hair, are not found in modern inhabitants of Eurasia, whose ancestors did not mix with Africans,” notes Richard Ferle.

Differences in the genetic structure most directly affect the intelligence of populations and the specifics of their evolutionary struggle for existence. “It would take much more than 65,000 years to replace the population of Eurasia with people from Africa. Assuming they have characteristics that Africans had 65,000 years ago, it is highly implausible that they had preeminence in foraging on continents with which they were unfamiliar, even if the inhabitants of Eurasia were more primitive. In addition, it is very unlikely that the Eurasians welcomed the Africans with open arms on their territory, thus a gradual peaceful replacement was not possible.

It would seem that any sane person, even without special knowledge in evolutionary anthropology, would have enough common sense to reject the hypothesis of the origin of modern human races from Africa. But Afrocentrists are very, very stubborn, so their system of evidence gives the external impression of an obsessive psychopathic destructive mania. In this regard, Richard Ferle rightly sums up: “Even Afrocentrists are forced to agree that the population of Eurasia has evolved more than Africans. Modern genetics confirms that Africans are most closely related to today's great apes. This means that even if people originally came to Eurasia from Africa, then the current Africans, whose ancestors did not leave Africa, had to go a shorter evolutionary path from an ape-like ancestor than Africans who left Africa. This in itself puts egalitarianism in serious doubt - everyone cannot be genetically the same when some are more ape-like than others.

And as a real professional scientist, completely independent of the political situation, Ferlet rightly states: “Summing up, let's say that the theory of the “Exodus from Africa” is defeated on all fronts; it testifies only to the power of egalitarianism to distort science.”

Egalitarianism, that is, the ideology of equality of all at the biological level through miscegenation, inevitably leads to heat death according to the laws of thermodynamics, and these physical patterns are easily found in world history at the level of development of individual states, empires and even large civilizational associations. It was racial chaos that destroyed ancient Egypt, Babylon, Greece and Rome. We can easily observe the same depressing processes today: “Life, like other acts of creation, is a local decrease in entropy (structural disorder), metization, like death, destruction and chaos, increases entropy.”

All social conflicts in the form of revolutions, spontaneous riots and just domestic violence, according to Ferlet, are basically the opposition of nature against the chaos of confusion, incited by the priests of egalitarianism. In addition, miscegenation inevitably causes a decrease in the IQ of the citizens of the state and leads to a general decline in culture, which today is observed almost everywhere in large metropolitan areas. Biological immunity is also reduced, which in turn leads to a general weakening of the constitution and degeneration. "In race mixing there is no plan to create a fitter person, or even a healthier, more intelligent, or any other desirable quality."

Therefore, the author of the book rightly concludes that the doctrine of egalitarianism is a form of mental pathology, and only a reasonable program of eugenics can save the world from chaos, degradation and degeneration. “Egalitarianism is an ideology at war with biology, and the creatures of Nature cannot survive for long following a suicidal ideology. Nature calls man to fight and defeat his rivals. Egalitarianism calls on a person, at least a white one, to welcome his rivals and contribute to their triumph over him.

Mixing, according to the scientist, inevitably leads to the erosion of the system of moral values, therefore, racially mixed societies are destroyed not only biologically, but also ethically, since the zealots of equality are accustomed to consider themselves as arbiters of morality. “The claim to moral superiority, however, is inconsistent with the multiculturalist thesis of “the equality of all cultures,” and since culture includes morality, if one's morals are higher, others must be lower. Indeed, even multiculturalists consider some cultural practices alien to us to be immoral.”

At the end of his essay, Richard Ferle calls on readers, based on all of the above, to soberly assess the whole drama of the situation for white people and make an informed choice in the interests of their own future. In this matter, the author adheres to the main line clearly marked in such philosophical books as Oswald Spengler's The Decline of Europe, Madison Grant's The Decline of the Great Race, Patrick Buchanan's The Death of the West, and many others. In his opinion, no one but the whites themselves is to blame for their extinction today, and no one but the whites can save them from historical disappearance.

Of particular value to this book is the fact that in most of the writings we have mentioned, the contours of the coming catastrophe of the “white world” were substantiated at the philosophical and speculative level, and our contemporary Richard Ferle relies on the facts of population genetics, forensic science and existing legal practice, which undoubtedly increases the value of the author's judgments. His book is no longer an emotionally apocalyptic warning, but a medical diagnosis of a patient with a clear prescription for surgical intervention in order to save his life.

The modern Russian reader, after reading this landmark book, will undoubtedly receive rich food for thought, because with the fall of the Iron Curtain and the end of the Cold War era, it becomes more and more obvious that the destinies of white people in both the Western and Eastern hemispheres are inseparable and interconnected.

It was the altruism of white people, who enthusiastically began to recklessly scatter the seeds of their civilization over all parts of the Earth during the Age of Discovery, played a cruel joke on them, because no one asked them for such royal cultural gifts. Contradictory at first glance, but extremely metaphysical Russian proverb “If you don’t want evil, don’t do good to people”, in the racial context of the current situation, it acquires a completely clear meaning. White people themselves called trouble on their future by the inappropriate sacrificial squandering of hereditary talents. “Ultimately, the most valuable thing that white people have is their genome. They can lose territory and wealth, but, having kept their genome intact, they will be able to survive and regain everything they have lost, ”proclaims the American scientist Richard Ferle, like an oracle of a new era of genetic determinism.

Translation from English: Cand. biol. Sciences D.O. Rumyantsev (Parts I, III–V), Ph.D. psychol. Sciences I.V. Zhuravlev (Part II)

This book has produced the effect of a bombshell in many Western countries, and all because it is devoted to one of the most burning issues - the racial differences of mankind. R. Förle systematizes and cites in his book numerous scientific data on genetic, anatomical, physiological, psychological, behavioral, and cultural differences between the main races. Being a staunch opponent of the theory of the origin of man from Africa (the failure of which is already obvious to many today), the author, based on the data he cites from various scientific fields (including physical anthropology, population genetics, psychology, medicine, sociology, criminology), develops the concept of the origin of modern a man from Eurasia.

According to this theory, at least four races of australopithecines existed before the appearance of man, and from them (possibly) the modern human races descended. The author suggests that Caucasoids and Mongoloids evolved separately, starting from Australopithecus living 2 million years ago, although significant interbreeding took place between them (denied, at least until recently, by adherents of the African concept). One of the author's main theses is that not all people living today belong to the modern anthropological type (Homo sapiens sapiens): a number of Africans from tropical Africa and the natives of the South Pacific Islands are, in his opinion, hybrids of Homo sapiens sapiens with Homo erectus or even late Homo erectus. Thus, the author is close to the position of polygenism, that is, the independent origin of human races. It should be noted that the polycentric theory of the origin of man is defended by our compatriot, State Prize laureate academician Anatoly Derevyanko, in whose opinion, modern humanity is not one species. The book presents a lot of evidence, diagrams, graphs, studies confirming the position that, in principle, it is incorrect and anti-scientific to talk about a single humanity - it is very heterogeneous, the differences between different races are sometimes simply fatal.

However, the author also paid attention to the problem that certain forces, ignoring the facts of significant differences between different races, do their best to promote and impose their equality, which is not true and is misleading the public. Races are not interchangeable. No one denies that heredity determines differences in intelligence in dogs, but it would be a sin these days to say that the same is true of the human races. In 1950, the UN declared in an official declaration that "all races are equal in intelligence." Although the loss of contact with reality is psychosis, but let's be generous and say that this statement came out of ignorance or deceit. That all human populations, living around the world for at least hundreds of thousands of years in completely different environments, turned out, albeit by chance, to be the same in intelligence, although they differ in thousands of other traits, contradicts the results of any test of intelligence that he presented. Egalitarianism is clearly false - human populations are genetically not the same, and this is obvious even to young children. To hold a view that is so clearly contrary to reality is a clear psychopathology, that is, these people are mentally ill. But this is not a trivial disease, as it perverts their most important biological function, the transmission of their alleles to the next generation. And just because psychologists and psychiatrists are also mired in the same psychopathology, egalitarians do not have their own special section in the Manual.

How can beings capable of not loving themselves evolve? Undoubtedly, such creatures should have died out long ago, having been supplanted by creatures like them, but self-loving creatures. A partial answer to this question is that man, unlike most other animals, does not fully follow his instincts. A person perceives his instincts as urges, but because he has free will, he is able to overcome these urges through willpower and often does this by choosing sometimes maladaptive behavior instead of biologically programmed adaptive. This is why we commit suicide, intermarry, and engage in many other maladaptive behaviors.

Racism and ethnocentrism are very different. Of course, caring for your family is adaptive, since family members have more of your alleles than strangers, so by helping relatives, you help spread your own alleles. Conversely, not caring for one's family is usually maladaptive. Mathematical analysis of genetic distances has shown - surprisingly - that members of your ethnic group have more of your alleles than members of other ethnic groups, and the same applies to members of your race. Thus, using your resources to help people of your race is adaptive, and using them instead to help people of other races is maladaptive, unless it's a quid pro quo. In other words, it is anti-racists, not racists, who should be labeled "mentally ill".

"...White people today are militarily superior to everyone else in the world, but they are not fighting for the one thing most important to the survival of their kind - who impregnates their women. They not only put up with the impregnation of white women by men of other races, not only make it easy, but in fact they rejoice about it!If they do not throw off the shackles of egalitarianism and do not fulfill their biological destiny, then soon there will be no more white children and there will be no white people left.... Since so many whites are genetically programmed for altruism, they hard to resist funding your own extinction.Each year, billions of dollarsare redistributed from whites to blacks, supporting them and their children, while whites refuse to have children, delay their birth and limit the number of their children due to the high cost of living. These redistributions include not only government social payments, housing subsidies, food stamps, subsidized medical care and assistance to black schools and social organizations, but also international assistance to Africa. In addition, individual whites make huge contributions to black funds in the form of donations to organizations and scholarships for black students, and white businessmen lose money by obeying affirmative action laws and paying blacks for moral damages due to discrimination ... The tribe of conquerors lays claim to the territory , resources and women conquered. The massive redistribution of funds from whites to blacks around the world, the widespread birth of mulattos by white women, and tens of millions of Mexicans proclaiming the western states of the United States as their territory, all this is evidence that the whites are conquered.

“…African Americans…clearly dominate whites. There is a colossal and ongoing redistribution of property, land and women from the subordinate to the dominant race" (Whitney, 1999).

There is no doubt that whites in their own countries could have avoided becoming a defeated race by simply believing in their right to exist and gaining the will to resist. They were defeated by their own conscientiousness and decency. Could it be The best way crush a conscientious enemy, convincing him that he is the cause of the suffering of other people and therefore has no right to exist? Whites are convinced that they are evil - responsible for the poverty and suffering of others, for the destruction of habitats and bloody wars. Even crimes committed by members of other races against whites are blamed on whites - these crimes are declared to be a legitimate response to white racism. An unspoken but important thought that enters the mind of whites regarding the crimes of non-whites is that the crimes of non-whites are evidence of white oppression of other races. Both morally and physically whites are being demonized, demoralized and disarmed by the incessant self-serving rage of non-whites and their fifth column of allies, the white egalitarians. Since the non-whites benefit from the defeat of the whites, no one is able to save the whites but themselves... Ultimately, the most valuable thing that the whites possess is their genome. They may lose territory and wealth, but if they keep their genome intact, they will be able to survive and regain everything they have lost. These days, however, it is racist and immoral for whites to love and cherish their racial uniqueness. Thus, we are heading towards the abyss. It will not be a pleasant descent, but the wise and well-prepared will probably survive and, after great suffering, rise again."

The book also deals separately with many extremely important and topical issues - segregation, eugenics, morality and double morality, individualism, miscegenation, neoteny (the ability of an individual that has not yet reached puberty to leave offspring), selectors (sexual selection), reproductive strategies, as well as a number of studies on different races of haplogroups, DNA, skeletons, tissues, brain, skin, hair, etc. - a lot of useful information that can help to understand in detail such important issues for the development of civilization.

P.S. What happens when a person sees the world not as it is, but as he would like to see it? He makes unwise decisions that lead to misfortune and waste of life resources. He is incapable of progress and doomed to stagnation in his inverted imaginary world.

Homo erectus roams among us. Richard Ferlet - Erectus wanders between us. Conquest of the white race. Vladimir AvdeevThe conspiracy anthropology of Richard Ferlet

Erectus roams between us. Conquering the White Race Erectus Walks Amongst Us. The evolution of modern humans» by Richard D. Fuerle Vladimir Avdeev...»

Richard D. Ferle
Erectus roams between us. Conquest of the white race

Vladimir Avdeev
The Conspiracy Anthropology of Richard Ferlet

Monitoring the quality of admission to universities Passing score to institutions Budget

Department of Medical Informatics

Find the derivative: algorithm and examples of solutions

The mathematical expectation is the probability distribution of a random variable

Find the asymptotes of the graph of a function Asymptotes of the graph

Homo erectus roams among us. Richard Ferlet - Erectus wanders between us. Conquest of the white race. Vladimir AvdeevThe conspiracy anthropology of Richard Ferlet

Erectus roams between us. Conquering the White Race Erectus Walks Amongst Us. The evolution of modern humans» by Richard D. Fuerle Vladimir Avdeev...»

Richard D. Ferle Erectus roams between us. Conquest of the white race

Vladimir Avdeev The Conspiracy Anthropology of Richard Ferlet

Similar articles

Richard D. Ferle
Erectus roams between us. Conquest of the white race

Vladimir Avdeev
The Conspiracy Anthropology of Richard Ferlet