Hi Fox,

Comments interspersed...

If there had been multiple independent evolutions from a precursor - H. erectus, for instance, who also migrated to Asia from Africa - to what we collectively call modern humans, in geographic isolation and/or at distinctly different times, they would be different sub-species, at minimum, and perhaps not able to interbreed at all. That this is not the case; i.e., that wide variations in human phenotype have no influence on the viability of offspring - the definition of species - pretty much seals the single origin hypothesis. The reports I've seen on mitochondrial DNA research does nothing but reinforce my conviction.

This is an area we could spend a lifetime debating (or more) I have given a bit of thought to it (with my own unique scientific views) and factoring in the x-factor of *infinity*.

This will be somewhat difficult to follow - but since you have perused SDAI LABS site it should be easier ;-) (well, sort of)

Here goes...

If the universe is indeed infinite, and if time and space are truly relative to varying motions of energy - then humanity or something like it can always be said to have existed as an energy structure. If we take away the significance of past, present and future and just add up EVERYTHING that ever has existed, does exist or will exist - and put that into an infinite box of 'energy expressions' we can see how evolution
would really be the manifestation of evolving energy structures into EXISTING formats. In other words, evolution would be following along well-worn routes.

So humans might evolve from monkeys and gain self-awareness at a specific evolutionary junction...at this point the monkey is no longer a monkey but now starts evolving differently on another pre-existing 'track' so to speak.

Likewise, we see certain similarities which manifest due to the nature of energy itself. (i.e energy receives/transmits data by waves which manifest polarity... so evolved life also manfests with lots of dual or polarity expressions - two eyes, ears, nostrils, lips, legs, arms, wings, beaks, brain hemispheres ... whatever).

So when we see varying species of birds they all share certain characteristics yet maintain unique genetic disparities.

Reproduction compatibility is maintained by certain frequency relationships which allow for insemination to occur. Structures or cells incompatible will be rejected much like donor tissue is - because cells are intelligent and only form links with harmonic matches.

This is why animals of different species do not reproduce effectively - their cells reject or repel and aren't drawn together.

Our genetic engineers could attempt to force the issue in a laboratory - but insemination is not enough. The structure must have stored in its DNA the necessary intelligence (sort of like a mega-microchip!) to produce a viable lifeform from the two disparate cell structures. If it does not...the fertilized embryo will die ... and probably sooner than later.

Humans too - while appearing compatible - are not always. This is one of the unknown factors in fertility. If a couple is having difficulties it is often because of certain incompatible wave forms being emanated or broadcast by their cells and so no fertilization occurs.

There is the all-important matter of frequency relationship which comes into play.

In the 18th centuries it was already well known that prostitutes bore children of less intelligence and antisocial disposition.

The pendulum has swung across and now we say...No! That was just class prejudice! Everybody is equal and has equal opportunity for brains, goodness, etc.

The true answer lies between the two.

The prostitute, by her profession, intelligence, etc. is capable of resonating within a certain bandwidth, frequency-wise. Her suitor is also capable of a certain bandwidth. When the two converge a common denominator is generally made manifest and where the two are most harmonically bound - that will be the incoming frequency of the newborn child.

So prostitutes kids often were little monsters and it was not just environment that made them so. They were harmonically drawn to her and that they were predispoded to those surroundings was evident.

Naturally, this sort of statement marks me as some inhuman monster - but the sad thing is it is all too true.

So refined, well-bred children were more often the result of two more refined adults.

There are countless exceptions to the rule (i.e certain souls can override the parents bandwidth and cell limitations and they will likely carry with them a much more developed energy anatomy which rejects the features of the parents to such a degree that they look like neither of them) But the rule of harmonic relationship still guides billions of births upon this world.

So back to the point...

If humans evolved independently at varying times from monkeys or apes throughout the world - they may still be able to reproduce due to frequency relationship. Much like the horse and the mule give us the jackass.

I will admit it is very possible that Africa has been home to humans longer than many areas, but with the geography of the world changing over millions of years - its possible the older areas which may have been home to humans are now under the seas or crushed between shifting sediment.

I think it is still too early to make any decisive call.

Consider, as counter-examples, both American continents and Australia: same total available time, similar climates, and in the case of South America at least, related species, particularly monkeys. Nothing like hominids evolved to fill analogous niches in those isolated environments.



I wouldn't care to argue against "Out of Africa", either (beautiful movie, btw). The same global palaeoclimate that made Africa perfect for the evolution of prehominids to hominids mitigated against their independent development elsewhere... if for no other reason than by occasionally re-paving the surface with a kilometer or two's thickness of ice*. The presence of modern occupation sites, while limiting the possibility of exploration somewhat, has not prevented palaeontologists from establishing a comprehensive picture of the prehistoric fauna of Eurasia, neither before nor contemporary with human migration and settlement.



Yes, but when you think of how isolated and rare old finds are...even in Africa ... it does not take much to imagine that deep under Paris (or 1000 feet below Raoul ;-) lurks some prehistoric examples of mankind that go back millions of years.

In China and all of the former USSR we have conducted almost no serious digs and modern archeology was cut off from these regions just as we were better capable of digging and processing data.

For example, the unusual genetics of some of the Mandarin Chinese which reach up to seven feet in height, seem worthy of extensive scientific archeological pursuit. Many of these regions may easily hold finds as old as some of the African discoveries.


To characterize the commonly accepted idea of "the African cradle" as a guilt-driven sop to African peoples (enslaved, oppressed, or otherwise), is a bizarre projection of motive onto a straight-forward, logical interpretation of physical evidence... the absence of which is, most decidedly, "the evidence of absence".

Not that bizarre. Especially seeing as how the "African cradle" scientific claim has been around for only a short period of decades and has already been politicized.


Finally - your claim of no great African civilizations other than Egypt is unusually ill-informed; try The Great Zimbabwe to start with.



Fox

* - It may be tempting to shift blame for 'absence of evidence' in the northern latitudes to glacial scouring of the surface and subsequent reforestation, rather than overbuilding by later humans... but it won't hold up.



Well, I will stick to my guns on this one...I don't think there have been too many great civilizations in the vastness of Africa - and since there was not the climate barrier other regions have overcame - I find it hard to imagine that our 'ancestors' only after leaving Africa decide to build vast empires...leaving the ones who remain to live for millions of years and even now in this modern era - content to live in a hut and throw spears.

Some folks say there are three races, some two and others still - five. I believe that the Oriental, Caucasion and African races evolved independently from different locales - possibly evolving from the same type of ape spread in different regions or different species of apes altogether. Many of these apes may have long since vanished from the earth, hunted or succumbing to the survival of the fittest rule of the jungle.

I also believe any remnants or pockets of our first human type ancestors which may have lived alongside more 'contemporary' shaped humans were slaughtered by later groups -just like the whole Tasmanian race was by the white settlers in Australasia.

However, I am not an expert in this field and will confess to having a good deal too many unanswered questions in my mind which see no immediate answers.

Best wishes,

Polygenist SDAI-Tech1