European ancestors

Warning: This article is still in under construction.

To understand the human condition before cooking and agriculture, one must know our evolutionary past up to that point. Where do we come from, where do we descend from? Biology and genetics have many foundation myths, however the most obnoxious deceptions and lies - with the greatest harm resulting, perhaps second only to the Holohoax and defilement of the Axis’ reputation - lie in the contemporary theory of human origins, by a wide margin.
We unravel the real origin of the human species, and the origin of races, which go back so much further back in time than is usually told. While absolute microscopic accuracy is a but pipe dream given the hundreds of thousands of years we contemplate, the broad steps from the advanced primeval past to our degenerate state now lays clear, casting both cruel lights on our present and genuine hopes for our foreseeable future.

An Official Theory That Does Not Hold Up

Materialism and the scientific establishment (Science TM) has become an established religion, erecting altars for its dogmas with the same absolutism as we erected cathedrals. It has its priests, and catechism, its fanatical and stupid followers. Hardly the moral ground needed to teach the bliss of rationality to fundamentalists of other creeds.
Biology and evolution theory textbooks, documentaries, all science, it seems, teach that the modern human species, the current one, descends from African apes about 6 million years ago (the number varies) from which a great number of other groups proliferated, developed and died, or merged with our remote ancestors, until they emerged victorious in the great evolutionary contest.

For the first part, we see nothing to criticize. When and where exactly we separated from bonobos, how long we wandered in Africa, is but of a mild intellectual interest at best as at the end of the day we were still apes, not human by any stretch of the word. Nothing political here. It gets hairy when we touch upon the emergence of men with brain size at least relative to ours, from 1200 cc onward.

The establishment says modern man left Africa around 50,000 B.C. to conquer all of Asia and Europe, mostly replacing and driving to extinction the species of men (called primitive> or archaic) already present. To then become fully modern, but strangely enough only outside Africa, miraculously.

These modern men were supposedly black, quite similar to Bushmen, and migrating all the way to Europe in the heart of the ice age, to beat in a few thousand years a native species much more robust physically and adapted to life in the North (we found some in the South of Siberia). In a nutshell, an ultra-Nordic man with a brain volume larger than any current ethny (save for… White Scandinavians) got replaced by an African bushman whose purest modern descendants barely reach 70 IQ points.

It is this myth you will hear ad nauseam to justify migratory invasions, the replacement of white populations by hordes of blacks and generalized racial mixing. We are all Africans, children of immigrants, they are at home. The same ideologues and media repeat night and day that races do not exist, but the white one is decidedly too big and intrinsically evil. The same ones, claiming we are genetically wired to find physical differences more attractive or that mixed individuals - enriched racially - are healthier.

Kangz meme

A short series of questions is enough to dismantle the official narrative:

But somehow, after an epic race war against these Übermensch Blacks fell into an eternal slumber of the mind, for fifty thousands years.Also, same thing in all of Asia as well with the neighboring Denisovan species residing there, with brains just as big, but benefiting from much easier climates (India, Thailand,, all the South of Asia) hence possibly bigger numbers.

Oy Vey goy, shut up and give your daughters and wives to migrants!
Meme we are all children of immigrants

The environmental pressure combined with a stark overall inferiority when competing with the Neandertals would doom any African colonization of the European continent. Still today they can not survive Northern countries without vitamin supplements and other artifices. Genetics has been used to prove our Negro origin, and that the traits of whites are not only mutations, but recent mutations: no more than 6000 years!

The official interpretation of fossils and genetics is wrong and oftentimes subversive. See the Cheddar man fiasco portraying the British WHG population as being phenotypically negroid in early-Neolithic Europe).

Evidences Cheddar man fiasco
To see Cheddar Man with his dark skin it definitely provoked quite an emotional response in me, and I think that’s the power of this. It’s one thing to know that there were black people here thousands of years ago and to know that White people weren’t always White. We know there were Africans here before there were English people here, for example, and so through that that gives you a sense of the idea that there’s this indigenous British person who is White and essentially British is a fiction, it’s a narrative that was created over time, it’s not based on scientific facts so this is another feature of that really.
Afua Hirsch, main author

Some backpedalling did happen, although scientists as a whole did not dare to empathize the sheer insanity of those claims, and their blatant ideological, anti-white racist grounds.

However, more recent ancient DNA research has identified human remains much older than the Neolithic period with the OCA2 mutation for blue eyes. It is now believed that the OCA2 allele dates back to the recent migration of modern humans out of Africa roughly 50,000 years ago, and entered Europe from western Asia.

50 000 years, oh so convenient. A date DNA analyses will likely not reach in a century. Oh so easy to quell the debates for long and avoid too immediate a backlash. Such scientists are brainless prostitutes who will say everything and its opposite to publish a paper and get their day of celebrity and funding, while having no earthly clue of what they’re supposed to be experts on.

The explanation is a multi-regional origin of the man, or more exactly of the three root races: White, Black (including Congoides and Capoides/Bushmen/San), Asian/Mongoloid. The genetic aspect of the argument will be touched upon below.

Multi-Regional Origin

This classification as old as it is, is easy to apply, and recent (dependable, unlike when dealing with degraded 30 000 years remains) population genetics validate it.

It is easier to refer to craniometric measurements than to genetics, because such visible traits depend on a large number of genes, difficult to isolate as well as to quantify… while their expression is observed in the mirror. Moreover, skulls are much better preserved than DNA and mutations (natural or due to degradation) considerably distort genetic analyses, while physical characteristics, often produced by natural selection, can remain the same through time. This fact will be useful to us later.

for a rather accurate comparison:
images 4 primitive skulls
Neandertals-sapiens comparison

There is no question that humans do originate from Africa but much earlier, leaving the continent along coastal lines. Then several groups splitted giving the homo antecessor, from which the Homo Sapiens or Negro evolved, and homo heidelbergensis, probable common ancestor of Neandertals man and Denisova man (presumed main ancestor of the mongoloid populations of which the purest instance would be Southeast Asians, that is to say the Chinese, Koreans and Tibetans). Other branches of homo erectus appeared and disappeared, like these two dwarf species (no more than 1.50 m) with a reduced brain, Homo floresiensis and Homo Luzonensis.

Insular dwarfism aside, the tendency for all other species/races, has been a continuous process of encephalization, a larger brain size. But some more than others. Thus the species in Asia and Europe have developed a brain reaching a ceiling of 1700 cm³.

Given that brains use a lot of energy and civilization didn’t exist, those huge blobs of grey matter must have been put to use and incredibly intensively: the adaptive pressure, wherever it came from, must have been strong enough to sustain that nigh continuous increase for a good 300 000 years. That meant their intelligence was from significantly higher than ours to genius-level on a species-scale, maxing out everything they could get from their organ. As do all wild animals with their body, per definition. We believe that since natural selection by predators already all but ceased for all apes, we believe their brain used to explore the hidden spiritual side of reality, the biggest part of it which we are blind to.

An alternative hypothesis states that because eye sizes have been shown to be adaptations to cold (to the preponderance of snow in the Arctic environment, to be precise), and brain size positively correlate to eye sizes, thus the bigger eye sockets (not biggers eyes mind you) of Neanderthals would explain their bigger brains without implying a higher intelligence.

But this demonstrably wrong.
This correlation means nothing. Logically, at most we should assume propotionality, meaning that twice the visual information should require at most twice the processing power, hence at most twice the brain volume in the visual cortex, the part dedicated to visual information processing.
And we see quickly that this correlation is not proportional at all:

The results showed that the biggest brains, averaging 1,484 millilitres, were from Scandinavia, while the smallest brains, around 1,200 millilitres, came from Micronesia. Average eye socket size was 27 millilitres in Scandinavia and 22 millilitres in Micronesia.

The conclusion would be that Nordic Europeans got 300 additional cc of brain to process a mere 23% increase in visual information, while the visual cortex is but 20% of the brain. Scandinavian eye size being just 23% bigger than Micronesians’, if we suppose proportionality, this difference should only explain 56 more cubic centimeters, not 5 times more.

Samewise, another argument concerns body size. Among related species differences in brain size have been correlated to difference in body mass: the more mass, the more information to process. Leading to the false assumption that relative (to the body) brain size matters more for intelligence than absolute size, although evidences are slim and scientific opinions mellowed out this last decade: It is believed now that most of the brain does not scale in size with body mass in any straightforward way, as most bodily processes occur identically for a 1.4m tall migglet Definition: Similar to a nigglet a migglet is a black baby. However a migglet is a black baby midget (otherwise known as a black baby suffering from dwarfism , or a 1.9 Icelandese strongman.

Beside, it would assume Neanderthals had a much higher body mass. But it was not the case, their BMI was no higher than ours: so being shorter they did not weight any more than us. Micronesians reach a measly 157.05 cm and while medieval Vikings reached an average of 173cm (not really tall it seems !) Neanderthals on the other hand were on the shorter side as far as Europeans are concerned: 1.68m.
Yet their brain was so big. That means one thing and one thing only: not was it bigger in absolute terms, but also compared to their body mass, and this higher encephalic quotient Definition: The encephalization quotient (EQ) is a measure of relative brain size and is often used to convey how small or large a species brain is compared to that of other species of similar body size. demonstrates their higher level of evolution.

And so it makes no sense that the Negro, judging from his current technological and cultural inferiority… his significantly lower average IQ throughout the continent and elsewhere after decades of integration, including in interracial adoption contexts, makes it unlikely that he could have beaten men considerably more robust, strong and intelligent than the current European, in a climate entirely different from his own.

Ergo Neandertals went nowhere but degenerated into present Europeans and the Northernmost populations the purest, as their environment reflect Ice age conditions which used to be prevalent. Nords being uniquely adapted, little to no non-European admixture occurred until fairly recently.

The Mitochondrial DNA Myth

It is often said that their DNA shows an entirely different species, especially their mitochondrial DNA, since it is often the only one whose abundance makes the degradation of time survive.

But it should be noted that DNA degrades so much that it is almost impossible to reconstruct the original sequence. These mutations are of many types and partly unpredictable. This article and this one in particular describes the problem well, and points to all the scientific references needed to to demonstrate how all the so-called proofs for the Out of Africa thesis fall apart as close examination.

If White European populations really are mostly descended from Neandertals and that the genetic differences distinguishing them from current humans (not only Europeans) are due to contamination, we may verify this theory like this:
If we were to find a sufficient quantity and of equivalent quality of mitochondrial DNA (or not) of Homo Sapiens from an equivalent period, say 140,000 years before Christ, it would appear just as different from us, alien, incompatible with any current population as time-related decay will have mutated it beyond recognition.

But there is no such fossil, none whose conditions enabled the preservation of quality DNA!

There is no archaic sapiens DNA with which to compare Neandertals. One obvious reason behind the low density of prehistoric modern humans remains is its appalling inhospitality for organic materials: heat and aridity promote exponential degradation, in particular of DNA which is extremely fragile, except in very special conditions such as clay ice or acidic peat bogs.

So, our approach does not revolve solely on DNA analyses which we deem increasingly invalid beyond the last Ice Age, as the past irreparably blurred the tracks like a sort of cosmic censorship1. Instead, the morphological continuity between Neanderthals, Paleolithic and Neolithic Europeans (Asian paleontology just getting out its diapers) drives us: on the same sites from one thousand to another we see not only the succession of one species to another from about 40,000 years ago but also their cohabitation and intermediate morphologies, tending more and more towards the modern man of today.

An analysis of these materials strongly supports a continuity in cultural development at this site from about 130,000 to 50,000 years ago and suggests that a continuous biological evolution from Neanderthal to anatomically modem Homo sapiens took place in the southern Levant.

While for the few remains we have, the sub-Saharan African skull (pure type without mixture) has essentially not changed since 200,000. Erectus did originate in Africa and groups left it around 1.5 million years it earned the label of chronospecies as for a long time we find a morphological continuity between the different groups with no clear boundaries, so that local denominations change willy-nilly and the usual definition of a species through interfertility, might or might not apply anymore, with gradual incompatibilities both in time and space between the first almost ape-like Erectus and the latest stage relatively big-brained specimens.

Three racial types
Homo Ergaster (robust erectus stage) is attested in Africa between about 1.9 and 1 million years before the present. At the beginning of its existence, it cohabited with Homo Rudolfensis, Homo Habilis, and Paranthropus Boistei in East Africa, and with Homo Gautengensis and Paranthropus Robustus in southern Africa.
Its endocrian volume varies from 750 to 1,050 cm³, with a trend towards the increase over time. The sexual dimorphism of this species would be smaller than at Homo Habilis. Homo Ergaster remains very archaic of facies, with an absent nose and a very prognathic jaw.

The description resembles many current Africans. In all likelihood multiple branches of Erectus around the world, including the Eurasian ones, evolved along a common trend of cerebral increase (at different rates though) with very slow but continuous by gene exchanges along genetic clines ?2

Homo Ergaster would be the ancestor of homo erectus in Asia. It is likely that it is also the ancestor of Homo Antecessor [ - circa 800 000 years ago- ] in Europe. It may seem hard to believe populations of twice 800,000 years divergence can still interbred (Pygmies and Norwegians to take the purest examples), but in reality it is not the only case in nature. Time is less important than the mutation rate, and amount of selected, significant mutations vs neutral ones vs drift, and some adaptations matter more than others when it comes to breeding, resulting in various degrees of anatomical, genetic, behavior incompatibilities etc. All of this, one cannot estimate from time passing only.

The likes of the Tautavel Man (Europe, 455 000 years) with very mature features somewhat closer to Erectus with 1166 cm³, is hard to place. We don’t really need to think that far, as various theories based on analyzes are routinely invalidated: paleontology competes with social psychology for the medal of the softest science. However a large consensus is established regards to Tautavel as the first safe element of the line of Neandertals.

So it seems likely, to conclude, that at least 500,000 due to environmental change (the onset of the last glaciation cycle) the different lines hitherto in low-intensity but enduring exchange (with boats, no see being a hard impediment), started differentiating with a common trend towards an increase in brain size - as getting dumber is never an advantage. So that the European species - the Nordic race - dates from at least 500,000 years.

Notice how the modern European skull meant to have appeared all around the world at the same time around -40 000 has nothing in common with neither modern nor Ancient African skulls, whereas the Asiatic and European skulls look a lot like a juvenile Neandertals skull (which does not show yet prominent brow-ridges).

archaic homo sapiens:

The modern African:

The Nordic European skull currently peak at 1500 and average at 1440 cm³. The Neandertals or his Asian cousin had a ceiling of 1700. Here is a rather striking comparison:


For those who might be shocked by these large arches, it is important to understand that really ugly eyebrow arches are not that common in Neandertals, perhaps 3 or 4 fossils in all. At an equivalent level of maturity (in proportion to their total lifespan), they retained more childlike and gentler features than we do, without sacrificing strength and robustness as aesthetics and beauty, both inner and outer, were major elements of their instincts, as they are of ours. children looked like… children. A lot more so, for the same age.

We used to stay young for decades.

If figures need be cast, assuming a rough proportionality (certainly wrong), a Neandertals in the third of his life, which would correspond to 30 years in our country.

Several details have often been exaggerated or even flatly falsified in some cases (and the fossils tampered with), such as this forward projection to give it a simian look and the absence of a chin. For two hundred years, reconstructions did not stop making him look primitive and brutal3. From the start centuries ago the first archaeologists being Christian priests destroyed many relics and finds, for fear of turning the official biblical story upside down. How can we place such men, similar but better in every way, than current humanity saved by Jesus? Could they date back to before the flood ?

Now, what we preserve by lying and hiding artifacts, is the culture the victors of WW2 cemented, with its antiracism and egalitariasm. If the world were to know that the White Man is Neanderthal itself and has degenerated from a semi-divine anterior race, Nazis would be proved right over night in the eyes of millions if not tens of millions, and rightly so.

From Neandertals to White Men

I owe 30% of what I know about this subject to Marie Cachet and her husband Varg Vikernes, 30% to the creationist orthodontist Jack Cuozzo, and 40% to the conclusions I have drawn in the context of instinctotherapy, which itself draws its justification from a number of studies, including those of Pottenger.

I do not share all the opinions of the people already mentioned, and I would never have supposed that I could learn anything from a fundamentalist Christian, but to be fair, the anthropological analyses of both are of high quality, even though they are not specialists… or because of it. I encourage everyone to visit the website, and to get the book Buried Alive.

These researches are in themselves unpublished and daring, but remain partial, and complementary. What was missing, in order to link the whole, was the knowledge of the genotoxic effects of cooking and the understanding of the real human instincts, in particular of the original functioning of reproduction, which is very different in humans than in all other species.

If a lot of robustness was lost, it was quite gradual, and the typical Neandertal skull shape is regularly found in some individuals (in the form of the “hemi-bump” among other things), to the point that assuming a simple mixture between 3 to 5% as one can read, does not make much sense. Big browridges, fair skin eyes and hairs and the highest cranial capacity in the world can be found in Scandinavia according to studies. It is no racist posturing than to say the Nordic race has the biggest brains, but undisputable facts.

Hence the Nordic race, adapted to the arctic conditions of life, is the Neandertal man, who did not undergo any substantial mixing, as indicated by the conservation of many recessive traits. The change is explained nearly entirely by the degeneration we brought on us by ourselves.

Cachet Theory

Mrs. Marie Cachet talks about hybridization with some Africans in the Middle East at a time of extreme cold that pushed the European populations to the brink of extinction, and this very slight mixture would have been enough to properly curse our species, decreasing the size of women’s pelvises, selecting through their death in childbirth, the children with a smaller skull, to gradually reach the point where we are.

While for some reasons the most obvious and least subject to natural selection, blond hair and blue eyes, lasted until now.

The incoherent mixtures in the same site of characteristics and diseases that we begin to observe in the bones from 40,000 kg would be explained by the mixtures, the first half-breeds, half-negroid half-Neandertal, disparate and dysfunctional sets of genetic and anatomical inheritances, just as with current half-breeds. The rest of the degeneration (loss of robustness) would have come with the sedentarization, the civilization, producing a self-domestication with effects similar to what we observe in cows, dogs and pigs.

Wolves are the largest of the canines, and they come in a variety of sizes. The gray wolf, which is the most common species, typically weighs between 80-100 pounds but can get as big as 175 pounds. They measure about 30 inches tall at the shoulder.
Wolves are consistently stronger, larger, more resourceful and more intelligent than dogs of any breed. With bigger brains as well. This phenomena is observed uniformly in all domesticated animals, including cockerels.
Compare this
to this: An arctic wolf can measure up to 1.80 m and a gray wolf, more than 1.90 m

Domestication also involves the selection of infantile traits, such as barking in dogs, which disappears in wolves as adults. The whole psychology and the attitude of dependence of the dog towards man, shows a perpetual regression to the state of a puppy, an attitude selected for the ease with which one can train and control a cub rather than an adult wolf, and this is true for any species. With the infantile character comes an underdevelopment of the brain4.

Here I will speak of species, because without modern medicine 70% of Black women whose partner is a white man have to undergo a cesarean section: it is a safe bet that in nature a hybrid population would have great difficulty in developing, even ignoring other barriers of a behavioral and geographical nature - without modern methods of transportation, would we see Africans in Europe?

But the theory of hybridization as the mother of all ills, which sounds like an improvable deus ex-machina, a kind of cosmic catastrophe whose unfolding steps seem very hypothetical and gratuitous.

Instead, the element that allows us to understand everything, that Marie Cachet missed, is that of cooking and the onslaught of pathogenic and mutagenic denatured molecules.

Domestication and Cooking

Cooking also explains self-domestication, by the disturbance of the fundamental instincts presiding over love and sexuality, magic and the choice of partners according to eugenistic criteria and obedience to a higher order.

Us forgoing the environment and evolutionary pressures we evolved for and continuously living in artificial conditions far remote from any form of natural selection, moreover arranged to facilitate an exgtremely lazy life compared to that a hunter-gatherer lifestyle (in the Ice Age !), allowed mutations of any order to proliferate and multiply, while their carriers otherwise would not have survived. As a result the genetic or epigenetic patrimony is ever more damaged, incurring a gradual loss of highly evolved traits less and less required or even incompatible with life in civilization, such as a superior intelligence or anti-social tendencies.

Mental automatisms known as feedback that - automatically - accompany cooking cause an imbalance of higher mind functions and the essential divide with the extrasensory world. This is the real reason behind the tendency for civilization which took root since. Christians would call this the Fall:

And to Adam He said:
Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat, cursed is the ground because of you; through toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles will yield for you, and you will eat the plants of the field.
Bible, Genesis

The cases of wild children scattered in today’s literature show that it is in fact not very difficult to live in nature, even the highly degraded nature found at the end of the Middle Ages. It makes me believe it was not necessary to have a Greek god-like Neandertal body to survive in nature.

I already explained how the Lamarckian heredity of the acquired characters allowed for a new unique dynamic, through which a population would impulse its own evolution in reaction to the environment, encoding adaptations and especially instincts in a certain reaction, modifying moral and aesthetic sensibilities so as to alter the very consciousness and experiences life would occasion, as well as change our criteria for love partners: starting from the environment, instincts and intelligence become their own evolutionary engines, in a virtuous circle.

In a way, genes through consciousness developed the ability of foresight, looking at the environment and actively provoking meaningful mutations aimed at adaptation. Instead of passively suffering the blind game of natural selection, the death of the weakest, etc. This is probably how human species starting from some threshold in brain size (say, 1000 cubic centimeters perhaps) have continued to develop despite being effectively immune to predation through their tools and team work.

Beside being a nutjob worshiping old age and grey hair, and criminally wasting her Aryan children’ body with mountains of chocolates and industrial white sugar lies in her misunderstanding of the very nature of classic Neandertal traits. One had to be familiar with the problem of raw and cooked food to have even the slightest clue of its disproportionate, cosmic importance. Then to understand the nature of the anatomical change we underwent, another key was needed.

Our species in its present state, especially the white and Asian race, has what can be called a tendency to neoteny Definition: Neoteny corresponds to a state of arrested maturation, before reaching its end stage of the ancestral species. We reach maturity more slowly and maintain juvenile traits throughout our lives. In humans. Hence features often considered more primitive and apparent in chimpanzees, such as a slight prognathism - projection of the face forward in relation to the skull - only appear much later, and even later in women than in men. .

The axolotl, a large tadpole breeding in the larval stage
The axolotl, a large tadpole breeding in the larval stage

This analogy may have more truth than at first glance: in many ways, compared to chimpanzees, human beings remain eternal juveniles. From our own point of view we enjoy an exceptionally long juvenile period (between weaning around 6 years and adulthood), compared to the faster fertile apes. Here as elsewhere, dietary and racial factors are prevalent. Europeans and Asians grow much longer (even after puberty) and rich diets lead to more abundant, frequent, and early menstruation, faster growth… and an early menopause.

Dentist Dr. Jack Cuozzo, from a literals Christian perspective, has found the key to the mystery. Studying the fossils as a dentist, he revealed many anomalies not congruent with the interpretations of paleontologists, especially regard to the growth rate and supposed age of the fossils. It has also revealed false reconstructions that no one with a basic knowledge of anatomy could have done in good conscience… revealed alterations and damage done to the fossils themselves with the obvious aim of forcing fossils to submit to their desires and to depict Neandertals as inferior. The fanatics of the theory of evolution, who like all fanatics react with violence and denial to any evidence of errors of their doctrines.
These are serious accusations, but widely documented.

The most disturbing details, concerned the age of the fossils:
Dental and bone morphology seems to indicate either a strong precocity and speed of growth even superior to that of the apes, or… a very, very long elongated growth, much more than ours.

We could give the example of a morphologically very young crane, but the jaw was well developed (indicating weaning), and the milk teeth showed signs of extensive wear which did not correspond to the estimated age. Problem is tooth wear has been shown a constant independent of lifestyle, and (over whole populations) only reflecting the passing of time. Their primary teeth were much more robust than ours, more than our definitive teeth even(taurodontes5). In all cases, wear is attributed to unknown lifestyle agents yet undiscovered in current populations, however primitive.

Also, the tooth in front of it doesn’t have the corresponding back side or distal side worn down to the same extent. This means that the primary or baby tooth, called the second primary molar, was the tooth that did most of the rubbing against the front surface of this permanent molar. This primary tooth is usually lost at or around 11 years of age. Some children hold on to them a year or so longer.In my 30 years of practice as an orthodontist I have seen thousands of these primary molars [ - milk teeth- ] and I can’t remember one that caused this much wear on the front surface of a permanent molar.

He noticed the excessive amount of wear on the first primary (baby) molars as compared to the second primary (baby) molars. This suggested a more protracted time between the eruption of these teeth than found in today’s children. Today’s children have their first and second primary molars erupt about 9 months to one year apart. These two teeth in the Engis child look like they were separated by a much longer time frame than that. This is what protracted eruption means: more years between tooth eruption.

The question that remains is, what happens when there is extensive wear of all the biting surfaces of the teeth and the face doesn’t stay the same length but, instead, gets longer or increases in facial height? This happened in Neanderthals. Does this represent overcompensation? Would it mean a higher rate of the adult passive tooth eruption process with very rapid bone build-up on the lower border of the lower jaw in the average Neanderthal life span of 45 years, 36 or 40 years? Or could it be the regular process of compensation at a normal or slower rate of passive eruption with an average or slower rate of bone build-up on this border over a much longer lifetime? We will discuss this later.

Buried Alive

We used to estimate age by the number of deciduous and permanent teeth by assuming the eruption schedule of modern populations for these prehistoric men and ignoring signs of dental wear or cranial development. In the 1980s people still wondered if Neandertals could even talk!

Cuozzo’s second discovery was the typical Neandertal morphology not being a simian trait we would have lost from the apes that prehistoric men preserved, nor the result of a very rapid growth, but the result of a multi-century growth instead.
In his own words: Ape or age ! Protracted growth or unbelievably accelerated maturation in the same amount of time as us.

Many people ignore it but we continue to grow after puberty: though in a slowed down fashion (in absence of disease or deficiency) bone mineralization continues, in particular on long bones (limbs) and the face, causing an elongation of the face. We are all born with a very small face in relation to the head, a ratio increasing with age from some level of retrognathism (pushed backwards) in babies and fetuses to the flat face of maturity, to a forward extension on older people.
As he explains in the article:

What Happens to the Craniofacial Structure of Humans Who Live Past a hundred years", if one mathematically projected the bone profile one would get if one could continue to live past the canonical ages of 120 years, considering contemporary growth rates one would find back Neandertal-like features. The Neandertals were the old people of the Bible just after the Fall, before and just after the Flood, when mankind began to live shorter and shorter lives.

Even at an accelerated growth rate, bone thickening such as that of the suborbital bulges (brow ridges), is a structural compensation of the mechanical constraints exerted by jaw muscles. Thus these bulges were found only rarely when people’s life expectancy started to approach ours. Not after the Flood, but after the beginning of the cooking.

We are not prevented from becoming full adults: we just don’t live old enough while ageing much too fast.

This was caused by cooking damaging our DNA thanks to an unprecedented amount of denatured mutagenic and genotoxic molecules etc. Hence the loss of complexity, brain size, women’s pelvises, joints… everything got dumbed down.

It is likely that the vast majority of mutations in humans, in a natural context, are intentional and endogenous, not chaotic. It took a very important source of chaotic mutations, which was cooking, to break the genetic correction mechanisms that allowed us to live so long. In itself, longevity is not a novelty in nature, the axolotl can live up to 150 years and as for the Greenland shark, let’s quote wikipedia:

The hypothesis was consequently made that an adult shark of seven meters in length could be over 200 years old. The ages of two females, 4.93 m and 5.02 m long, were estimated to be between 260 and 410 years (335 ± 75 years) for the former and between 270 and 510 years (392 ± 120 years) for the latter, based on carbon-14 dating of the lens. This makes it probably the longest-lived vertebrate animal known in the world, surpassing the bowhead whale. The negligible senescence of the Greenland shark is explained by the very slow growth and development of the animal.

Human beings have a much faster metabolism than theirs, of course, but other animals are known to strictly speaking not age at all, i.e. not losing any ability with age. This is rather common with crustaceans like the lobster, which grows (sometimes to impressive sizes) until it dies by predators or fellow creatures (cannibalism), or if it’s lucky by surviving until a moult when its carapace has become too thick for it to discard, and he dies. The strong natural selection and intraspecific competition regulates their population. Closer still is the dwarf mole rat, which I have already mentioned. So the idea of living a thousand years, a biological quasi-immortality, would merely be the next evolutionary step.

Superior Physique

The markings on bones (musculo-tendinous attachments) akin to that of apes indicate approximately the level of stress muscles exerted throughout the individual’s life, on the the corresponding bones, relative to our own bones. And in the case of Neandertals those As we saw, prior analysis draw the inescapable conclusions that they were not merely earlier stage of our evolution but a higher one, a perfection version of the current Nordic race, just like Elves are often described, so simply imagining a rugged mountain of muscles deprived of the slightest grace (as in most modern reconstitution) wouldn’t make any sense. Instead, we must consider they were stronger pound for pound than us, like apes. They had close if not exactly chimpanzee strength.

Muscle insertion areas and measures of mechanical advantage clearly suggest that Neandertals were able to exert greater forces on objects in the environment than are most modern humans. Assuming that there were no major differences between Neandertals and modern humans in muscle composition (i.e, the proportions of type I and type II fibers: 72) or architecture, the rough estimates above suggest that Neandertals had somewhere between 1.3 to 2.0 times greater upper body strength than seen in the average modern human from an industrialized, agricultural economy.

we can estimate the out-force of this muscle at 101.0 N and 69.7 N (or 22.6 lbs and 15.6 lbs) in male and females, respectively. In elbow extension, then, the Neandertals appear to have been some 79% to 96% stronger than modern human comparators.

How Strong were the Neandertals? Leverage and Muscularity at the Shoulder and Elbow in Mousterian

Indeed those figures are even higher than what recent studies found for apes, albeit with a caveat as we’ll see. So let us first look a bit at studies on chimpanzees.


Chimpanzees exhibit a balanced distribution of the three MHC isoforms across 35 skeletal muscles. For the same muscles, humans exhibit a significant bias toward slow-twitch fibers in their skeletal muscle with measurements ranging from (i) 69.2 ± 11.7% (14) [t(72) = 14.04, P < 0.0001, t test] to (ii) 52.6 ± 7.9% (15) [t(73) = 9.29, P < 0.0001, t test]. This is in contrast to 31.5 ± 11.4% in chimpanzees.

Chimpanzee muscle fibers also constitute a greater percentage of their total muscle–tendon unit length than do human muscle fibers (C: 59.0%; H: 44.0 %) [ - shorter tendons create a stronger torque… more bang (power) for your buck (energy expenditure)- ] .

Contrary to some long-standing hypotheses, evolution has not altered the basic force, velocity, or power-producing capabilities of skeletal muscle cells to induce the marked differences between chimpanzees and humans in walking, running, climbing, and throwing capabilities. This is a significant, but previously untested assumption. Instead, natural selection appears to have altered more global characteristics of muscle tissue, such as MHC distributions and muscle fiber lengths. Our integrated experiment-simulation results indicate that these changes have led to a general reduction in maximum dynamic force and power-producing capabilities; however, they have enhanced metabolic characteristics and endurance capacities of human muscle.

Today, intensive athletic training can mitigate some of our inherent limitations in maximal muscle performance, but primarily through force enhancement via skeletal muscle hypertrophy. More generally, although higher levels of anatomical organization, such as the size and shape of muscle, tendon, and bone have been the main targets of evolutionary processes, hominin muscle dynamic force and power-producing capabilities have also been altered since the Pan and Homo lineages diverged 7–8 million years ago.

Matthew C. O’Neilla & co, Chimpanzee super strength and human skeletal muscle evolution

Here is a summary of the scientific consensus on ape strength:

Major differences in muscular performance between great apes and humans have been put down to differences in muscle architecture and joint lever systems due to obviously different locomotor adaptations. Whether this is sufficient to explain the differences in strength between chimpanzees and humans or whether differences in motor unit distribution are also responsible can be explored through detailed quantitative histological study of motor axon size distribution in the spinal nerves of chimpanzees and humans. The experiments that I can think of to test whether there is cerebral inhibition in humans and not in apes are probably unethical or at the least very difficult to justify and undertake.
Alan Walker, The Strength of Great Apes and the Speed of Humans

We oppose those conclusions.
Firstly, the assumption that fibers composition or type or architecture was the same, the muscle quality in other words, must be wrong, because chimpanzees do not cook food. While their specific strength (power per pound) are measured at from 1.20–2.05 times ours across studies (see Appendix and Discussion sections from ) and predicted in this latest one at a mere 1.35 through computers models and isolated fibbers under a microscope don’t seem to shown any difference in quality or density (allegedly), anecdotal displays of power related by onlookers, allude to much higher feats than a mere 2 times, maybe due a higher nervous fiber activation (mentioned here as cortical inhibition. Scientists think ape muscles are no different than ours, except fibers are longer and more of the type 2 (fast, powerful but quickly tiring) than type 1 (slow, enduring).

But performance in whole-organism tasks - real life situations - can not be reduced to fibers, it is often the case that with better coordination, one can perform several times better than previously, because the right muscles were sufficiently developed before to use other muscles in their full capacity in the right moment and right direction. For instance, handstand push-ups are impossible for nearly anyone untrained, the performance is 0, muscles can not respond, especially not when falling from a distance. But trained, a man develops a desirable physique and the skills to pull out stunts impossible for others. The power developed in a real life situation (unlike under a musculation bench or a microscope) isn’t proportional to muscle mass.

There is also the idea that we lost fast-twitch fibers in order to last longer, hypothetically due to natural selection, forcing us to forage for longer distances once we quit the forest:

A high fraction of MHC I fibers can also reduce fatigue by limiting the muscle’s reliance on glycogen and other intracellular substrates during contractions, which permits more frequent muscle activation per day in the aerobic range. Indeed, the large muscle masses (both in absolute and relative terms) in human hind (lower) limbs further enhance our aerobic range during bipedalism.

But we know we didn’t quit anything, and I couldn’t find a test on those alleged type 1 chimpanzee fibers or whole muscles during exercises, showing their getting tired more easily than humans’ for the same effort. Of course they are not made to walk upright like us, neither their muscle architecture nor skeleton. Regardless of biochemical identification through MHC isoforms, the main point of nearly all those scientists (that is, that we lost something in exchange for another quality) holds no water, until proved otherwise. If anything, the arms of apes constantly straining for considerable times while moving from branches to branches, show the very opposite of tirelessness. They can sustain a body weight for extended periods.

Incidentally, humans share with sloths the palm of having the most relative amount of slow-twitch type I fibers. Yet while bearing less muscles for their size compared to other mammals and obviously not requiring much explosive power, sloth arms are twice as strong as ours for the same mass6.

Beside they actually use a fair amount of what we could qualify as fast fibers, of the MHC-II type, to eschew fatigue yet maintain mass-power efficiency, if not increase it. IIa type is intermediate type, good at both endurance and power generation, and is the most commonly found kind of fast fibers, among both athletes and animals. Lastly, MHC types distributions for a given muscle varies a lot among humans too7.
Among different species estimating differences in abilities just from fiber composition is not possible. One always needs whole-body experiments.

Not this:
But this !

We descend from Neanderthals which, that we know for certain due to studies and artifacts found, that they did not lack in fine motor control in any way. Yet possessed ape-like strength, as estimated from bones. We may have more and smaller fibers, allowing for selective activation and finer movements.
But to deduce a loss of explosivity makes no sense, as it would imply the impossibility of activating more smaller units at once. Cortical inhibition, in the senes of limiting ourselves for no reason, can not be an evolutionary feature as most of time our muscle mass would be dead weight to carry.. We should be able to access 100% of our strength on command.
The legs of populations culturally specialized for either long distance running, despite it being a highly aerobic task, do not show big muscles, instead boasting a surprisingly lean, efficient physique.

Another truth, is that humans don’t need to use their muscles in any capacity. We are not fit. But more importantly, using them to the fullest would rip our tendons and articulations apart, because they are made of bad proteins, at least it is the unambiguous reality of humans under agriculture. But thus was not the case for Neanderthals, as bones tell us.

It is surprising that many textbooks portray a wrong picture of Neandertal height as being “very short” or “just over 5 feet”.
Based on 45 long bones from maximally 14 males and 7 females, Neandertals’ height averages between 164 and 168 (males) resp. 152 to 156 cm (females). This height is indeed 12-14 cm lower than the height of post-WWII Europeans, but compared to Europeans some 20.000 or 100 years ago, it is practically identical or even slightly higher.

In reality the weight of an individual (and so, its shape) is difficult to estimate with any precision from a skeleton, triply so from a fossile. As per current (varying) estimations Neanderthals’ BMI was 27, so overweight according to current standards. Firt off, let us keep in mind that the BMI (kg per square meters) means precisely shit regards to shape, as it does not differenciate weight from muscles, and that of fat. And our ancestors had more or less the same physique as a wild chimpanzee, as would any wild animal: a maxed-up yet practical body.
Simply put, weights are estimated through the size of ones’ long bones and skull, guessing at the mass behind according to modern ratio, or in some cases estimating the strength which would have been necessary to leave behind the visible strain marks bones exhibit, then getting at the mass that must have produced that power.

But in both cases the estimation is of course extremely indirect. Representations never take into account the important fact (yet acknoweldged here and there) that ancient humains (all species included) must have had the same efficiency as chimpanzees, around twice our strength pound for pound.

Meaning that all weight estimation are grossly overestimated, as it means that in fact, for the same skeleton carried around or power applied through an articulation, our ancestors only needed half the mass we currently need. Hence their real BMI must have been closer to Bruce Lee’s8. Neanderthals, because of the peak physical state animals must stay in, would not have exceeded this weight, 65kg of muscles, not 85.

These imaginary weight and muscles masses always given, have been used to reduce their calculated encephalization quotient (brain to body mass ratio), in order to relativize (read: cope with) the excessive intelligence those humongus braincases indicate. In reality, aesthetics in a sane person indicates that fat percentage for men should stay between 8 and 10% (see this gallery with trained men).

Unfortunately taking advice from chimpanzees does not help, as a male’s fat percentage is null. No, literally, less than 0.1%. Humans with 0% look like their skin could crack at any moment, like an old sheet of parchemin dried for ours under the scorching son of the Sahara.

While the shape of bones hints at the stress exerted on them, our point is that if true, the more than likely hypothesis of a higher ape-like efficiency allowed Neanderthals to keep a peak-human look, Captain America-like look. super-human look maybe, but human nonetheless, not gorilla-like. At least for some some muscle groups, the proportion and thus physique to deduce, doesn’t require much imagination since they still exist in some rare populations, the Aleuts, who obviously, beside good-looking thicker arms, look fine.

Among recent humans the Aleuts – both males and females – appear to be generally more muscular than other groups, while European Americans of both sexes tend to be at the lower end of the range for most variables. Aleuts and Neandertals are similar in mean M. triceps brachii advantage (and do not significantly differ from one another statistically), and have significantly higher mean values of this variable than all the other groups. No significant differences exist between the non-Aleutian Island modern human samples.

Talking about males and females, now seems as good a place as any to challenge a prejudice very damaging to society:

Sex determination among fossil hominids has been considerably more difficult than age estimation. Whereas it is possible to estimate reliably the sex of about 90% of recent human skeletal material using a variety of indicators (Krogman 1962), it is uncertain how many of the traits used for sexing modern human skeletal material can be applied to fossil hominids (Genovés 1969). Early at- tempts to assign sex to incomplete fossil remains led to a disproportionate number of specimens being called male (Genovés 1954; Weiss 1972). This probably resulted from paleontologists’ using the general level of robusticity of the skull as a sexual indicator, and because early hominids are more robust than recent humans, most were referred to as male.

Not only are Neandertal and other early hominid crania generally more robust than those of recent humans, but most of the qualitative characteristics traditionally used to discriminate male and female crania are inapplicable. For example, the various sexually distinct features of the orbits listed by Krogman (1962) and others are obscured by the presence on the Neandertals of supraorbital tori.

1983, The shanidar neanderthals, page 43

This could mean either of two things: Or a disproportionate number of men (including for early hominins) died sooner, or their women were equally as tough and possibly as muscular as the men although not necessarily harboring the same proportions (a more balanced lower:upper body ratio).
From musculo-tendinous attachments on their bones (and their curvature under great tension, something we don’t see today) we are forced to consider physiques hardly common today, strong women capable to arm-strong current halterophiles, and men throwing them around like rag dolls. Such fit bodies, we hardly ever see today in men, let alone women.


The complicated question of what physique is the most natural for women won’t be tackled here, but everything from our decades of instincto experiences to pure aesthetic considerations, points at our girls being much too fat and physically pathetic. Like for any animal, women should be on average more agile than men of the same size, lighter (so should be their skeletal mass), and for the same age, usually smaller. However, the same mass should warrant the same power, even though distributed differently. There is simply no point in excess fat for survival value, no ape is a bear, we do not hibernate nor need to stock fat during winter, instead we use our brain to find food or stockpile it in prior auspicious seasons.

Many animals store or hoard food, by instinct or conscious forecasting, it doesn’t matter. But to assume muh big brained humans/aryans/whatever didn’t use to, is an insult to our allegued intelligence. Monkeys and chimpanzees have been seen hoarding fruits, perhaps intuiting they risked missing the occasion to come by again to eat more of them. Squirrels with a brain the size of walnut singlehandedly disprove the need for agriculture (or in the case of Varg Vikernes’ cult, either abundant subcutaneous fat or tons of meat) to endure food-deprived winters without half your offspring dying.

A squirrel hid thousands of walnuts under the hood of a man’s truck. It wasn’t the first time
That fellow, the acorn woodpecker, could also teach us lessons in foresight:

Ultimately, the best practice to find the perfect adult female physique from a functional point of view (best male physique too), seems to be calisthenics. While our sense of aesthetics can be fickle or subject to conditioning, evolution favors this kind of efficient body.
Later European Nordid types, such as Hallstatt Nordids and Trønders, presenting traits in comparison highly neotenic (such as a pronunced high forehead, reduced browridge), should not be interpreted as signs of the arrival of a new species, or worse, God forbid, the unholy union of frail Nigger blood and brutish-looking Neanderthals.

Instead those new types, coexisting with the Cro-Magnoids Coon labelled Upper paleolithic survivors presenting much closer characteristics, with more robust-looking skulls, proportionally smaller foreheads and longer faces (but larger as well relative to the head), reflects what ageing does while our lifetime became too short for classical Neanderthal traits to develop fully at their initial speed. That neoteny in and of itself is no sign of degeneracy, quite the opposite: Neanderthals matured much more slowly and at any given age maintained traits from earlier stages of maturity. Typically children were born lookling like overgrown foetus.

In terms of lifespan, we are born, breed and die as kids, almost neonates. The comparison with the axolotl is much more than an humoristic analogy.

Conversely, those while those that do reach maturity demonstrate undeniable Neanderthal blood, it might also indicate accelerated ageing. Looking old and mature when most hope to live exactly a mere tenth of what our genetic is still mostly programmed for, is not good a sign at all.

We must consider, that nearly Neanderthals we found with accentuated mature traits were not adults but extremely old people9, which to cite the late Dr Cuozzo, would look very funny. White people should not aspire to look like that, anymore than a child should desire growing too fast, way too fast. On the contrary, the longer we look young while growing strong (otherwise it’s confusing slow maturation with under-maturation) the slower we age and in better diet condition the longer we could hope to live. There is no good or bad Nordic types as long as no obvious admixture witih Mediterranneans (read: Semites) or Asians can be proved.

If anything, the classic Nordid look seems more natural as we could assume the bulk of the population at any given time, was morphologically speaking either young or adult but not old, hence would look exactly like us, just stronger.


Around one million and a half years ago local groups of Homo Erectus (whose cranial box averaged 775 cc) left Africa along coastial regions, and populated Eurasia (meeting or not earlier iterations of hominins) where they started diverging into the ancestors of the White and East-Asian races. For around 500 000 years, evolution followed everywhere a common trend of encephalization, they started reaching our current intelligence and the minimum brain size, around 1000 cubic centimeters, circa 200 000 years ago when the classic Neanderthal type arose.

H. erectus had a human-like gait and body proportions, and was the first human species to exhibit a flat face, a prominent nose, and perhaps a scattered covering of body hair.

Although brain size is certainly larger than that of ancestral species, capacity varies widely among populations. H. erectus is associated with the Acheulean stone tool industry, and is hypothesized to have been the first human ancestor capable of using fire, hunting and gathering in coordinated groups, caring for wounded or sick group members, and perhaps navigating and practicing art (although examples of art are controversial, and otherwise rudimentary and few in number).


Chimpanzees brow ridge:

Before that, we see that facial traits were even more robust on average, more prognathes and accentued. It makes sense that our intelligence increased, our lifespan must have slowly extended past that of chimpanzees as well, reaching at most 150 years, the theoretical maximum of today with medicine and proper food, in the best conditions.. Before the classical Neanderthal traits emerged, European hominins had more accentued traits, a flatter forehead and on average thicker brow ridge than later Pleistocene humans.
This facial development seems compatible with a chimpanzee (or bonobo) basis past its final state, though flattened and elongated to fit human proportions.
Then a psychic awakening must have happened in our species, as their speed of maturation decreased proportionally while their life expectancy increased until approaching a millenia, and psychic powers began developping, until reaching their apogee between a hundred thousand years ago nd fifty thousand years ago.
An argument in suipport of this idea, is that the huge supraorbital torus (brow ridge) early hominins exhibited was often hollow hence can not be explained by the dissipation of continuous chewing force, even with an advanced old age. That means this was not a functional trait in term of survival, more like a matter of aesthetics (sexual selection) so it must have developped in individuals according to genetics only, explaining the vast interindividual variation.
That indicates that either sexual selection, for no real reason, strongly weighted down on this characteristic… or that our development rate diminished, so that only the oldest living fossiles among us would show them (as some classic Neanderthals still do).

We are left with a glaring question: while a primitive man could understandably fall for an artifice unexpected by nature:
How could a hyper-intelligent über-Nordic seemingly more knowledgeable about the universe fall for it, while having stayed clean for a good two hundred thousands years, a time span we can hardly wholly outside our comprehension ?

We think appealing to supernatural causes to explain the Fall as in almost all myths and religions, might not be so ludicrous after all, for no rational explanation seem all to fly the in the face of known facts, of our experience and reasonable projections from them. At the beginning of the cooking process, with degeneration significantly undermining our life force and natural regenerative abilities, the damage must have been light, perhaps imperceptible, like the patriarchs like Noah who lived after the Fall but before the Flood, and merely drank wine.

Curve of Biblical patriarchs’ age

There are more people cured from hard drugs, than those weaned from cooking. According to a drug addict, giving up cooking is even more difficult than for heroin. It is not improbable if we imagine a people both uninformed and hospitable, that cooking swept the world almost instantaneously as far as fossil records are concerned, so on the scale of a few thousand years.

With animals as well as human beings, we observe a difference between the cooked state and the natural raw state, proportional to the size of the brain… to the capacity for introspection and metacognition. Your intellect has to be able to control and regulate your deranged impulses. Animals fed cooked food without the support of recipes (such as dog food) specially designed to reduce the immediate effect on health, for the most part, will eat whatever they find and die quite quickly of disease, violence, rather spectacularly.

We have seen this with rats, not to mention the countless domestic and farm animals fed then raw food, bulls, pigs, cats and dogs. Although human behavior is greatly altered, animal behavior of animals is even more so due to their impulsivity (lack of a metacognition which would imply higher brain functions). It is possible that human beings with bigger and more complex brains than ours, genetically more advanced, devoid of our frustrations and still very close to energy, could not see much difference, much less than for us, their degenerate descendants.

The idea of a proportional effect on the brain inversely proportional to the degree of intelligence or more exactly self-control, is also confirmed between humans: individuals (or racial groups) notably below average or backward one way or another, shows much stronger or visible psychopathic and schizoid tendencies. This explains the horrors visible in Africa since time immemorial, the incessant wars, abominable genital mutilations and persistence of cannibalism and rape as a weapon of war.

So once the transition to cooking might have gone wholly unnoticed, if people were significantly less addicted than today, and had enjoyed centuries of mental stability. Then the next generations would suffer more, and more, and more, and more. As their sexual instincts went unbounded cooked groups ended up outbreeding the rest. For beings endowed with low intelligence perhaps cooking has occurred regularly (once a generation over a whole continent…) starting from a certain brain size but individuals or groups falling into that trap would die quickly, thus needing quite the particular conditions and enough of a population limit size so that their increased fertility could counteract the mortality. Lots of speculation here.

For years I have felt uneasy with these theories, as if missing a piece of the puzzle.We are talking about men with an average intelligence superior to anything we know today, equal to our Mozart, Kim Peeks and Max Planck. Geniuses with unfathomable extrasensory faculties, possibly equal to the gods of our mythologies…

In all likelihood some gods (Isis and Osiris for example, maybe the Irish Tuatha de Dana) were based on the last generations of (relatively) advanced men more than 10,000 years ago, who left a mark in our collective memory. Evehmerism perhaps didn’t miss the mark from much after all… Neo-Evehmerism just swapped for Neandertals/gods for aliens.

Why didn’t the visions, all preoccupied with destiny, warn us of the impending doom ? Exterminating the few groups responsible for initiating the debacle would have been enough. In the light of the technological talents that archaeology revealed, it seems clear to me that such men with so much brain and time on their hand could have, had they wanted to, in the span of a few centuries, built a civilization similar to ours, packed with weapons or whatever else to ensure their supremacy on the planet for all eternity. It would not have taken much: simple hot air balloons and trebuchets would do the trick. Within a generation or two, God knows what an army of hundreds of nearly immortal, clairvoyant Einsteins and Teslas could create ?

Something feels missing.
Archaeological finds are much too limited in their resolution in time and completion, unable to take us any further as far as hard evidences are concerned. The future will rely on the extrasensory - the grace of gods - to provide more information, and the location of more evidences.

  1. There are also reasons to think some people aware of the incoherence of mainstream theories have deliberately destroyed fossils undermining their agenda. ↩︎

  2. Measurable gradient in a single character (or biological trait) of a species across its geographical range. Clines can show smooth, continuous gradation in a character, or they may show more abrupt changes in the trait from one geographic region to the next depending on physical barriers to gene exchange. ↩︎

  3. The ’evolution’ of Neandertals over the last 100 years says more about us | Abroad in the Yard ↩︎

  4. Mammalian Domestication and its Effect on Brain Structure and Behavior ↩︎

  5. If the roots were longer, the pulp could not retreat as far because the dividing point in the root structure would be closer to the body. Since it is low-down in the lower jaw or high-up in the upper jaw, the pulp can retreat quite far as reparative dentin builds up. This means the taurodont tooth will last longer than the normal “cynodont” tooth which, by the way, means “dog-like.”
    Hillson said tauro-donts were also found in modern man but it was a rare variant. Pinborg found it in less than 0.1% of modern humans. Stringer thought the shape of these roots is produced by “a delayed turning-in of the base of the roots” during their formation. He also thought this feature was related to the extreme wear endured by Neanderthal teeth, because teeth with undivided roots will maintain a whole chewing surface even when worn past the crown into the unseparated root area.
    Finally, a taurodont molar will resist gum (gingival) recession better than a modern tooth merely because of its size and shape. Since the division between the roots, called the “furcation,” is much farther away from cemento-enamel junction (crown-root), and hence the original gingival (gum) margin, it takes longer for gum and bone recession to reach this point. As the Neanderthals aged their gum margins probably receded like ours do now. Although it also was slower than modern gum recession, it also had a longer distance to traverse in order to reach the “furcation”.
    Any periodontist can tell you that once this point is reached, the tooth is quickly doomed to extinction because of food and plaque getting stuck in between the roots and more infection and rapid bone loss from there, if there is no periodontal treatment.

  6. Despite suspensory habits requiring great strength, skeletal muscle mass in tree sloths is reduced, accounting for only ~24% of total body mass (21) compared with 33% reported for other arboreal mammals (40). However, sloth forelimbs are strong and capable of applying nearly twice as much total joint torque as an average human.

  7. Skeletal muscle fiber type distribution is quite heterogeneous, with about 25% of North American Caucasian men and women having either less than 35% or more than 65% of type I fiber in their vastus lateralis muscle.
  8. Prime Bruce lee weighted 65.9 kg of pure, alluring muscles for a height of 173cm, giving a BMI of 22.5. ↩︎

  9. Explaining a few health defects typical of extremely outworn skeletons, despite otherwise not looking that old to our scientists, rarely more than 50 :
    La Ferrassie 1: New perspectives on a “classic” Neandertal ↩︎