How mankind species is “homogeneous”? What gives with this tenuous evolutionary theory? Current explanation defies a few of my common senses
Posted by: adonis49 on: November 28, 2014
And why mankind is “homogeneous”?
How come with this tenuous evolutionary theory?
Current explanation defies a few of my common senses
Ice age covered most of Europe and reduced the green Sahara to a desert. And that was 200,000 years ago that almost wiped out all kinds of human species and barely 600 of them survived in 5 locations in Africa, mainly by the main Congo, Niger and the Nile rivers… That’s the current hypothesis.
The theory want us to believe that from these 600 left to survive, homo sapiens managed to colonized earth and all its continents. How? By following the herds, the edible vegetarian animals.
As if herds are about to leave their domain: They barely cross rivers in their shallow sections, and these scientists want us to believe that they crossed seas and oceans, one way or another.
Many kinds of bipeds species with brain size close to current man have been found in many continents. A few species had very small stature and much smaller brain volume, others had larger stature and larger brain, others grew as fast as Chimpanzees do (an 8 year-old skeletal looked as 14 of age)…
This centrist theory, as old as time, is pretty tenuous.
If mankind homo sapiens could develop in Africa, why it should be so far fetched for Man to have also evolved in Iran, India, South Asia, Latin America and in every major river basin?
If they managed to evolve in Africa, homo sapiens should be able to evolve in a few other locations with the appropriate climatic conditions, away from the poles.
In any case, if they evolved with a different DNA structure then they wouldn’t be of the same species. Would they?
Why the scientists keep insisting on this centrist concept?
If mankind on earth has the same genes structure, should it be because it came from a single source or branch?
How about considering this alternative: mankind has the same genes simply because this is the exact structure that made him everywhere he evolved?
If the Neanderthal species survived for 400,000 years, twice as long as Homo sapiens, why the researchers insists that this species disappeared 25,000 years ago simply because it failed to be flexible and adjust to climate change?
The scientist want us to believe a theory that the larger brain of the Neanderthal species had two lobes smaller than current man, simply based on the structure of the skull, a tenuous finding meant to degrade this evolved kind of species. The scientists claim that he lived mainly on meat and never ate fruits or vegetables.
If this is true, then the Neanderthal species must have domesticated animals in farms and thanks to plenty of protein they grew bigger than homo sapiens in body and brain: they had to consume twice the required calories.
Why the researchers stick to the notion that the Neanderthal failed to fabricate killing tools adapted for the large animals, when they were totally carnivorous species and needed twice as much protein as the better evolved Homo sapiens?
Actually, the tools the scientists discovered were of their latest phase before extinction and are not representative of 400 thousand years of evolution. Anyway, if they had short range killing tools, maybe it is because they domesticated animals and didn’t need to go after dangerous animals.
How about because they had domesticated the animals and didn’t need heavier weapons?
How about this species failed to survive more than 400,000 simply because the various branches didn’t merge in a few locations to improve their skills and culture for development?
And Why this current mankind seems homogeneous?
I conjecture that samples of many mankind species migrated to the most fertile centers after major calamities where they evolved and formed a melting pot of developed species.
I may consider at least 4 melting pot centers: The South-East Asia around the Mekong River, the Indus/Ganges Rivers, the Central America, and the Middle-East/Caucasus region.
The best plausible hypothesis is that of the advent of the “Reverse Migrations” from the main melting pot centers to the 5 corners of earth, each center migrating everywhere by successive phases, with preference to the closer regions and then onward.
If the Middle East is considered the cradle of civilization, maybe it is because many more than one branch of Homo sapience converged and linked in this land. This convergence generated higher development for intelligence and a variety of cultural know-hows for sedentary living.
If it has been proven that the Phoenician mariners landed and colonized America (north, middle and south) 3,000 years ago, why is it not possible that mankind colonized these continents, Australia and the Pacific islands from South Asia and India, many thousands years before the Phoenicians?
Be careful excavating the artifacts from archaeological centers in the Middle-East.
Mankind, be honest, generous and proud of your origins.
Adonis Diaries 
Leave a Reply