The idea of replacement is that more adapted populations replace less adapted populations. That is entirely reasonable, and replacement in that sense has undoubtedly occurred for billions of years. However, the longer a population lives in an environment, the more adapted it becomes to that environment and the more superior the adaptations of another population have to be in order to replace it.
    The OoA theory of the origin of modern man holds that modern man (Hss) arose in Africa, then migrated into Europe and Asian, “replacing” all the more primitive Eurasian species of man, e.g., erectus, who had lived there for well over a million years, and the Neanderthals, who had lived there for about 350,000 yrs. But erectus was different in different territories, and those same differences appear in the modern men in those territories who supposedly came from Africa and “replaced” erectus. Thus, for example, the improbable OoA scenario requires the Asian erectus, with his shoveled incisors, to be forced into extinction by modern Africans, who lacked shoveled incisors, but managed to evolve them once they arrived in Asia. A better explanation is that the Asian erectus did not go extinct because it was replaced by modern Africans, it went extinct because it became modern Asians, right where it was – in Asia – and its descendants kept their shoveled incisors.
    According to OoA, the supposedly modern Africans who supposedly migrated into Eurasia did not, for the most part, interbreed with indigenous Eurasians and absorb them. No, those primitive indigenous Eurasians just could not compete with the superior modern Africans, and they starved, died from disease, or those modern Africans killed them off. At any rate, so the OoA story goes, primitive Eurasians disappeared from Eurasia and modern Africans appeared, then those modern Africans evolved into today’s modern Asians and Europeans.
    The replacement of Eurasian indigenous species by Africans is an essential part of the OoA theory because, if there was no replacement, then modern Eurasians must have evolved somewhere other than in Africa and the whole OoA theory falls apart. The reader may be wondering how anyone could believe such a story, but that is the dominant view throughout the sciences and the media. Let’s examine it more closely.

                            The African Migrants
    What would these Africans, who allegedly replaced all of the indigenous Europeans and Asians 65,000 ya, have been like? Were they already like today’s Asians, neotenic, storing fat evenly all over their bodies, white skinned, and flat faced? African adults today do not store fat uniformly over their bodies as babies do, nor is there any need to when one is living in the tropics and there is little danger from the cold, particularly for an adult. Indeed, the uniform storage of fat in the tropics would be maladaptive, because in the hot sun of the day it would prevent the dissipation of heat and lead to hyperthermia, especially during times of great activity, such as hunting or fighting. Losing traits that are advantageous in Africa before leaving Africa, is not reasonable, and it is safe to conclude that the African migrants would not have lost their African traits until many thousands of years after they had settled in to their new Eurasian home.
    How would the first modern men, Hss, who allegedly arose in Africa, have been different from their immediate African Hs ancestor? The Hs African ancestor of an African Hss would have been somewhat less primitive than the African erectus, but well adapted to live in the tropics of Africa. Since these Hss Africans were the first modern humans on the planet, they would have been superior to all the indigenous Hs Africans and would have replaced them before they left Africa and started replacing Eurasians. In order for African Hss to be more successful than his archaic Hs predecessors, so that he could replace them, he would have had to have retained all of the traits that his Hs predecessors had that were advantageous in Africa, and he probably retained most of the neutral traits as well. Since he was still living in the same environment as his predecessor, there were no strong selection pressures, which means that he would have been very similar to his predecessor.
    If we compare a skull of today’s Africans (Figures 9-3 & 9-4), who live in the same environment, to Kabwe, a 125,000 to 300,000 BP archaic African skull (Figure 17-5), we can see the direction of any changes. This comparison suggests that if the first modern man, Hss, arose in Africa, he would fall somewhere in between those two skulls, and would be more primitive than today’s Africans, having a smaller brain, more sloping forehead, larger teeth, a more protruding jaw, and more noticeable traces of a saggital keel. Since tropically-adapted traits (e.g., dark skin, short black wooly hair, little body hair) likely evolved long ago and today’s Africans have these traits, the first modern Africans probably also had them.
    Now, if it can be shown that today’s Africans could not have evolved into today’s Eurasians in only 65,000 yrs, then all the more so the more primitive Africans of 65,000 ya could not have done so. Afrocentrists would not want to argue that Africans 65,000 ya were more modern than today’s Africans, as that would mean that the Africans who drove all the Eurasians to extinction became even more advanced in Eurasia while some of those same modern Africans, who stayed behind in African, became less advanced. So, if a significant number of today’s Africans do not have modern hard and soft tissue, behavioral, and other traits (especially neutral traits), neither did the first modern Africans who supposedly evolved in Africa and then replaced everyone in Eurasia. The reader can refer back to Section II, particularly Chapters 16 and 18, to see just how primitive today’s Africans are. Since today’s Africans are not modern, Africans 65,000 ya, must have been even less modern and the OoA position that modern man arose in Africa is false.
    In addition to having primitive body features, today’s Africans have failed to build, or even maintain, working civilizations, even with the example of the West to work from and hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign aid. Why? Because they lack the most important trait required to create civilizations – a brain of high intelligence that plans for the future and does not demand instant gratification. But, against all reason, OoA supposes that 65,000 ya Africans, who were even more primitive, were nevertheless more advanced than the people living in Eurasia at that time, though Eurasian tools and weapons from those times do not support that contention. Superiority is a necessary supposition because, unless a primitive population vastly outnumbers a more advanced population, it cannot defeat them in battle, particularly when they are defending their home territory. For example, in the Rorke’s Drift battle of the 1879 Anglo-Zulu War in South Africa, 150 to 155 British troops and volunteers held off 4000 Zulu warriors, hardly what one would expect from a race that supposedly conquered all of Eurasia. ¹
    An immigrating population usually does not invade the territory of an indigenous population by violent conquest, as Genghis Khan’s hordes did, but rather it expands and bumps up against them for many generations, gradually absorbing some and pushing others out. Even a gradual takeover is usually possible only if the incoming population is superior at acquiring food in the new territory. But to replace everyone in Eurasia by that method would require much longer than 65,000 yrs and, given the traits that Africans 65,000 ya would have had, it is extremely unlikely that they would be superior at finding food in continents they were unfamiliar with, even if the Eurasians were more primitive. Moreover, it is very unlikely that Eurasians would have welcomed Africans into their territory, so a gradual, peaceful replacement would not have been possible. But for a tribe of Africans to trek all the way from Africa to SE Asia, then conquer a no doubt more numerous population defending its home territory, is even more impossible.
    Finally, let us not forget that Toba erupted 73,000 ya and that the first ice age lasted from about 73,000 ya to about 55,000 ya, so 65,000 ya was hardly an opportune time to invade Eurasia. Large numbers of Eurasians would be migrating south, some into Africa, at the very time that these dauntless, tropically-adapted Africans were allegedly elbowing past them in order to reach the now-abandoned land of ice and snow.

          Indigenous Eurasians   

Figure 22-1

    The OoA story continues that after African Hss spread over most of Africa, they moved into the Near East 90,000 ya, Australia by at least 50,000 ya, and Europe by 40,000 ya. ² All of that territory was already inhabited, very likely to its carrying capacity, by various varieties of Homo. Erectus had been living in West Asia since at least 1.8 mya (georgicus) and also about that long ago in SE Asia (Java Man).
    The Neanderthals were living in Europe and western Asia from about 350,000 ya to about 24,500 ya. Figure 22-1 is a map showing the range of the Neanderthals. ³ Although the map shows that Neanderthals did not venture into Africa (though their predecessor, Heidi, did), it would be more accurate to say that no Neanderthal remains have yet been found in Africa. Since the Neanderthals did not go extinct until 24,500 ya, there were still plenty of Neanderthals around for those modern Africans to replace 65,000 ya. The Neanderthals in Europe were large, stocky, highly-muscled, big-brained, well adapted to the environment and colder weather, in possession of tools and weapons and, no doubt, fierce. Heidi, the predecessor of the Neanderthals, possessed aerodynamic (forward weighted) spears dating back to 400,000 ya in Germany (Thieme, 1997), so his Neanderthal descendants would have had them also.

Figure 22-2

    Figure 22-2 is a comparison of a Neanderthal skeleton with a modern Caucasian skeleton. The reader can no doubt discern which is which. One glance at those skeletons should be enough to convince anyone that Africans did not invade Europe and replace the Neanderthals. ⁴ And Asia, according to OoA, was filled with erectus, who would not have welcomed Africans 65,000 ya any more than Asians would today. There are no Neanderthal or Eurasian erectus skeletons with African spears in them, nor have any African artifacts been found in Eurasia.
    One might also wonder what the primitive Asians who were replaced by those modern Africans might have been like. Well, it was not just the Neanderthals who were large and strong. Jinniushan, a fossil found in China (Figure 17-9), was that of a 5’ 5 ½” tall, 173 pound woman, so you can imagine the size of the men. And we have a living example of what some of them may have been like. Figure 22-3 is Nicolai Valuev, the 7 foot, ¼ inch (214 cm) tall, 330 pound Russian Heavyweight Champion, known as “The Beast from the East.”

Figure 22-3

    Note the heavy brow ridges that extend completely across his forehead, and how much his forehead slopes, both Neanderthal traits. ⁵ Valuev is clearly an atavism (see Bassou on page 13), which suggests:
    (1) At least a portion of Eurasia was previously inhabited by people who had the primitive traits that Valuev has; and
    (2) Those people did not have African traits, such as wooly hair, black skin, or simian prognathism, i.e., Eurasians are not the descendants of Africans.
    The replacement (called a “sweep”) postulated by OoA of indigenous archaic species in Eurasia by African Hss who migrated into their territory means that the African migrants did not interbreed with the archaic species and did not pick up genetic material from them (a “clean sweep”). Given the hypersexuality of today’s Africans (Chapter 11), that alone is hard to believe. The Africans either were just better adapted to their new Eurasian environment than the indigenous Eurasians who had lived there for at least 1.8 million years (e.g., georgicus), or they were superior fighters and were able to kill them off, resisting the temptation to mate with Eurasian women (!!!), despite the indigenous humans having larger brains, superior weapons and tools, heavier and stronger bodies, intimate knowledge of their own territory, and no doubt a willingness to defend it to the death. And we know that not all of the indigenous humans could have been wiped out by Africans because Neanderthals were still living alongside Caucasians in Europe 24,500 ya. ⁶ Thus, OoA is wrong in saying that Africans replaced indigenous Eurasian species of Homo when they migrated out of Africa 65,000 ya, because they certainly did not replace the Neanderthals.
    It is not likely that the Africans could have brought a deadly disease with them that wiped out indigenous Europeans because many deadly African diseases, such as malaria ⁷ and sleeping sickness, are caused or carried by parasites (e.g., mosquitoes and the Tsetse fly) that would have been left behind in tropical Africa. Even the viruses in Africa usually come from an animal host (e.g., apes and monkeys) that would have been left behind. Besides, at that time people were not crowded into cities, so it would have been difficult for even a head cold to spread. And deadly viruses and bacteria usually mutate to become less deadly, because the deadlier microbes die with their hosts.

                         Interbreeding with Indigenous Man
    Because interbreeding weakens the entire case for Africa being the birthplace of modern man, the afrocentrists initially insisted that there was no interbreeding between the newly-arrived Africans and indigenous Eurasians. Indeed, until recently there was not much evidence of interbreeding between Hss and archaics. Now we know that there was even successful interbreeding between the Pan (chimpanzee) and Homo (man) lineages. (Patterson, 2006). The ancient traits that today’s Eurasians have and today’s Africans don’t have would have to have come from a northern archaic species (e.g., Neanderthals, erectus), making that species, not Africans, an important ancestor of modern Eurasians.
    However, if all modern humans in fact came from Africa, then today’s Eurasians should be free of non-African archaic mtDNA and nuclear DNA. Since afrocentrists concede that such DNA would require at least some interbreeding, its discovery in Eurasians (Chap. 20, 21 & 25) has forced afrocentrists to reluctantly give ground ⁸ and concede that some interbreeding may have occurred. Not enough, of course, to refute the essence of OoA, that modern man arose in Africa, but enough to account for the ancient non-African DNA that has been found in Eurasians. The publisher of this concession says, however, that “as much as 80% of nuclear loci have assimilated genetic material from non-African archaic humans,” ⁹ so it seems that “some” is a sizable amount. Other papers ¹⁰ concede there was never any “replacement” of Eurasian archaics because archaic Eurasian alleles were found at 80% of the locations along the DNA chains that were studied, which means that Eurasians must have interbred with the archaic humans who were already living there. And an afrocentrist said, "I set up a null hypothesis and the program rejected that hypothesis using the new data with a probability level of 10 to the minus 17^th. In science, you don't get any more conclusive than that. It says that the hypothesis of no interbreeding is so grossly incompatible with the data, that you can reject it." (Templeton, 2005). Most of these non-African archaic Eurasian alleles are very old, much older than 65,000 ya, when replacement supposedly began.

                            Losing African Alleles
    Alleles, especially alleles that are not strongly negatively selected, do not disappear quickly. ¹¹ The ancestors of snakes stopped walking about 100 mya and the ancestors of whales left the land about 50 mya, but some snakes and whales still have vestigial legs. Australian aborigines have characteristics that the 1.8 million year old Java man had. Today’s East Asians still have the flat face and high cheekbones that Peking Man had ½ mya. Alleles can be lost rapidly if they code for traits that are a disadvantage, but if they code for a neutral trait, they may be retained for millions of years. ¹² Male nipples, which have very likely been around since the first mammals about 200 mya, are useless, but are still there. Our ancestors became bipedal at least 10 mya, but we still have useless toenails. ¹³ Yet, under OoA, Africans lost all vestiges of their African traits in only 65,000 yrs.
    Had Africans actually evolved into Eurasians, one would expect at least a few Eurasians to still have at least a few African-specific alleles, but even African alleles that code for neutral traits, such as hair and eye color, that egalitarians tell us are “trivial,” are absent. ¹⁴ “There are no distinct African features in early modern Europeans. We cannot point to specific features and say these are African features." ¹⁵ The only Eurasians who have African alleles are those whose ancestors imported African slaves. The absence of African-specific alleles in the Eurasian population is strong evidence that replacement did not occur.
    Moreover, many Eurasian alleles, such as blue and green eyes, blond and red hair, and straight and wavy hair, are recessive to the corresponding dominant African alleles, so both Eurasian parents must have the allele that codes for the Eurasian recessive trait in order for it to be expressed. Thus, it would be especially difficult for those recessive alleles to evolve and spread through the invading African population that, allegedly, replaced the indigenous European population.
    Even if an African loses an African-specific allele, it does not mean that he will be left with the corresponding Eurasian allele. For example, if an African loses the allele for black skin, he does not acquire the white skin of a Eurasian, but becomes an albino, because he does not have the Eurasian allele for white skin – all of the African alleles for skin color code for black skin color, ¹⁶ so losing all those alleles leaves no color at all, not Eurasian white skin. Similarly, if an African loses the allele for dark eyes he is left with a colorless iris, not blue or green eyes. The proposed trek out of Africa and into Eurasia would have taken tens of thousands of years, during which time people who had lost their African-specific traits would have been at a severe disadvantage until advantageous mutations had occurred that gave them all the Eurasian-specific alleles.

Figure 22-4

    Surely the Africans who migrated to malaria-infested India must have retained their African alleles for sickle cell resistance, as those alleles would be as beneficial there as in Africa? Nope. (Nagel, 1992). Only Eurasians whose ancestors imported African slaves have those Africa alleles. Figure 22-4 (Kulozik, 1986) shows four haplotypes for sickle cell resistance, three of which (circle, diamond, and square) are found in Africa (the circle one is also found in African Americans and Caribbean Africans), and one (triangle) that is found in India and the eastern oases of Saudi Arabia, but not in Africa.
    When the alleged African migrants stepped onto Eurasian soil, they would have first moved into tropical Asia, an area for which they would be most adapted. There, in an environment similar to their African homeland, they would not have evolved much at all. Thus, the indigenous people, the aborigines, who today occupy the topical areas of Asia, should look very much like the migrating Africans of 65,000 ya. And, indeed, the Negritos of the South Pacific do have some African features (Figure 27-7); they have even been called “Oceanic Negroes.” Unfortunately for OoA, they are actually the people most genetically unrelated to Africans. ¹⁷
    Australian aborigines have occupied Australia for at least 50,000 yrs. If those African migrants were anything like today’s east Africans, they would have excelled at long distance running, but would have been poor swimmers and boat makers. Though it is possible, ¹⁸ it would have been difficult for them to make that long Africa-to-Australia journey following the Asian coastline, crossing rivers that flowed into the sea, in the 15,000 yrs between 65,000 ya and 50,000 ya. The Australian aborigines who supposedly descended from those migrating Africans should look a lot like them. Unfortunately also for OoA, at least some of them look much more like primitive Caucasians (Fig. 22-5).

Figure 22-5

    The afrocentrists could say that the aborigines were the only people not replaced by the migrating Africans, but then the aborigines would be un-egalitarianly un-modern. Maybe they could say the aborigines evolved from the African erectus that left Africa 2 mya and became modern on their own (though they are not modern), without being replaced by Africans. No, then someone might wonder why all the other Eurasian erectus did not do that as well.

             Acquiring Eurasian Alleles
    After tens of thousands of years, as the tropical areas of Eurasia approached carrying capacity, the allegedly modern African migrants would have moved north and would have begun to evolve cold-adapted traits. This means that, in an impossibly short 65,000 yrs, they lost all the alleles for the African traits described in Section II and evolved all the alleles for the European and Asian traits described in Section II. The new nuclear DNA mutations included not only eye and hair color and type, but also skull shape, skull capacity, and hundreds, if not thousands, of other traits. Intelligence, as measured by IQ, would have had to have increased by more than two standard deviations, from 67 (and it may have been still lower 65,000 ya) to over 100.
    To evolve just one trait, a trait that was strongly selected for in the cold north, such as a stockier body to reduce heat loss, within that time period would be unlikely. But to evolve each and every one of those traits, even traits for which there was little or no selection, within that time period, is not possible, even for neutral traits. That would have easily required well over a million years, and could never have occurred in only 65,000 yrs. ¹⁹
    Let us not forget that we know from fossils, cave drawings, and artifacts that Eurasians had at least some of those Eurasian traits for tens of thousands of years, further shortening the time needed to lose African traits and then evolve Eurasian traits. For example, the Cro-Magnons, the immediate predecessor of Caucasians, who had a skull almost the same as today’s Caucasians, were living in Europe 32,000 ya, so if Africans left Africa 65,000 ya, they had only 33,000 yrs to evolve the African skull (more primitive than Figures 9-3 & 9-4) into the Cro-Magnon skull (Figure 2-9), which is not believable.
    Also, some African traits are specialized for the African environment, but the corresponding Eurasian trait is generalized. For example, to keep the brain cool, African hair is specialized by its shortness, cross-sectional flatness, and the absence of a central duct, which makes it wooly. European and Asian hair is not adapted to serve such a special function and therefore is more generalized. Evolution usually proceeds from generalized to specialized, not the reverse (Chapter 4, Rule 3), and therefore Eurasians would not have evolved from Africans. ²⁰
    If OoA is correct and some Africans who evolved into Homo sapiens sapiens left Africa 65,000 ya, then the Africans who remained in Africa should not have any traits that are adaptive in Eurasia, but are maladaptive or neutral in Africa. But they do. The fact that Africans have a nose supported by external nose bones suggests migrations of early man into Africa. In the tropics, where the air is warm, there is no need for nose bones to support a large nose to warm the air, and apes do not have them. The nose also moistens the air, but Australopithecus and very early man in Africa walked the savannah when it was dry and managed to do so without external nose bones. Thus, there would be no positive selection for nose bones in the tropics, even where it was dry, and Africans today would not have nose bones had the alleles for nose bones not been brought into Africa by Eurasian hominids who had them. The large size of Africans also suggests the migration of northerners into Africa because, according to Bergmann’s Rule, Africans should be small; all pygmies and Negritos are tropical and small (Figure 27-3 & Figure 27-7) and Australopithecus, from which humans are believed to have evolved, were small (between 3'6" and 5'0"); the Hobbits were also small. According to evolution, man did not magically appear on this planet out of nowhere – he descended from a non-human animal and that animal was an ape. Of all the animals on this planet, living and extinct, man is most similar, genetically, anatomically, physiologically, and behaviorally, to the living great apes – chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. Therefore, although man probably has a common ancestor with every living creature on this planet, his common ancestor with the great apes is more recent than his common ancestor with any other living animal, and therefore our most recent common ancestor was almost certainly an ape. This means that all races descended from an ape; every one of us traces our ancestry back to an ape.
    During the time between when that ape ancestor lived and today, the lineage of every population has evolved. Whose lineage has evolved the most away from our ape ancestor? Would it be the Africans, the people who lived for that entire time in the same environment that our ape ancestor lived, or would it be the Eurasians, the people who OoA says left that environment and migrated to a very different environment? Even the afrocentrists have to concede that people in Eurasia would have evolved more than the people in Africa, and modern genetics confirms that Africans are mostly closely related to the living apes. This means that even if the people in Eurasia originally came from Africa, today’s Africans, whose ancestors did not leave Africa, must have evolved less away from that ape ancestor than those Africans who left Africa. ²¹ That, by itself, casts serious doubt on egalitarianism – everyone cannot be genetically the same when some people are more simian than others.
    OoE also says that man evolved from an ape ancestor and, since today’s apes live mostly in a tropical climate, that ape ancestor most likely lived in a tropical climate, so OoE and OoA are in agreement that man began in a climate that was at least warm, if not tropical, then some of our ancestors left that climate for the very different northern Eurasian environment. Whether that warm climate was in Africa or in Asia (e.g., India) and when that ancestor left it are the issues. OoA says our ape ancestor lived in Africa; OoE says it lived in Eurasia. OoA says our ancestors left only after they had evolved into Homo sapiens sapiens, about 65,000 ya. OoE says our ancestors left while they were still apes, over 2 mya (and it is possible that they never lived in Africa - Chap. 23).

    To summarize Section III, OoA fails on every front; it is a testament only to the power of egalitarianism to corrupt science. Now we examine OoE.

1. (Kemp, 2006, pp. 444-445). "Britain is said to have conquered 100-million people in the Indian sub-continent with 800 soldiers and 2000 Indian auxiliaries." (Roodt, D., "You Can’t Have Your Banana and Eat It," Barely a Blog, Apr.1, 2005). Back

2.  (BBC, Feb. 27, 2007). A Near East date of 90,000 ya is required to account for modern fossils found in Israel. The date is not consistent with the migration date of 65,000 ya, so the afrocentrists say that that migration failed. Back

3. (Richard Klein, National Geographic). The range has recently been extended to include southern Siberia. (Krause, 2007a). Back

4. Figure 22-2 is actually a bit misleading because the average Neanderthal was shorter than the average modern Caucasian. Neanderthal = 5'6", 142 lbs; human = 5'9", 172 lbs. (Carey, B., "Scientists Build 'Frankenstein' Neanderthal Skeleton," Live Science, Mar. 10, 2005). The larger, stocker size of the Neanderthal skeleton is an example of Bergmann's Rule, that a species is usually larger in a colder climate as a larger body has less surface area per unit volume, so the body loses less heat per unit volume. Bergmann’s Rule is due to a relationship known as Kleiber's Law, which holds that as body weight increases, energy requirements decrease as the 0.75 power of body weight. (Lewin, 1998, p. 152). Invading Africans would have been significantly smaller and weaker (a greater height/width ratio) than non-tropical Eurasians. Back

5. OoA proponents would have to take the position that Valuev is a descendant of Africans but, even though he has primitive traits, he has no distinctly African primitive traits. “[I]f one looked long and hard enough through the skeletal collections of the world’s natural-history museums, one could find the occasional present-day human with a Neanderthal … feature.” (Schwartz, 1999, p. 157). Back

6.  And Java Man, an erectus in Asia, lived until 27,000 ya. Back

7. Also, the Asian alleles for sickle cell anemia, which confers resistance to malaria, are different from the African alleles. (See Fig. 22-4). Back

8. (Eswaran, 2005). Others have also proposed models intermediate between the strict OoA and the Multiregional models. (Smith, 1985; Relethford, 2001; Templeton, 2002). Back

9. (Eswaran, 2005). That is, 80% of the loci may have some archaic admixture, not that the human genome is 80% archaic. Back

10.  (Harpending, 1998b & 2002; Templeton, 2002). Back

11. Alleles that code for primitive traits are usually switched off, not lost, where “lost” means mutated so that a second mutation is required to reintroduce them (Chap. 3) or lineage sorting, where those who had them had no descendants. In long term evolution (millions of years) the loss of alleles is important (Spinney, L., New Scientist, “Evolution: hacking back the tree of life,” June 13, 2007), but other than the massive number of deaths during the ice ages and the Black Plague, loss is unlikely to play an important role in the evolution of modern man, as the time period was too short. And, if African alleles were not “lost,” but turned off, they should occasionally be turned on again, resulting in Eurasian parents having babies with Negroid traits, but that does not happen, which is good evidence that Eurasians did not evolve from Africans. Back

12. “In a large population, a neutral or indifferent mutation will not ordinarily spread rapidly, nor will it necessarily be lost. It can be expected, all else being equal, to maintain a low frequency in a large gene pool.” (Coon, 1962, p. 47). Back

13. Other examples in humans include the coccyx (tailbone) and the appendix, though the appendix may serve as a safe haven for beneficial bacteria. (Science Daily, "Appendix Isn't Useless At All," Oct. 8, 2007). Back

14.  When hairless tropical hominids began moving north out of the tropics, they would be under selection pressure to lose the melanin in their skin so their bodies could make enough vitamin D; this would be true whether or not they originated in Africa. (Kappelman, 2008). Back

15. Fred H. Smith, Professor and Chair, Department of Anthropology, Loyola University of Chicago, personal email to the author. Back

16. “…any diversion from eumelanin production (black pigmentation) appears to be evolutionarily deleterious” in Africa, but is neutral outside of Africa. (Harding, 2000). Back

17. (Table 7-1). Nevertheless, “the ancestral allele associated with dark pigmentation has a shared high frequency in sub-Saharan African and Island Melanesians. ” (Norton, 2006). The African-Negrito connection is discussed in Chapter 26. Back

18. “The migration from southwestern Asia [i.e., India] to Australia would have taken <5,200 years at 95% confidence, assuming a Poisson mutation process.” (Hudjashova, 2007). Back

19.  Here is a thought experiment for the reader. It is 65,000 ya and there are no Eurasians. Could you take a few thousand Congoids, the Africans who today have the least amount of Eurasian heritage, reproductively isolate them in Eurasia, selectively mate as you wish to, within 65,000 yrs, produce today’s Asian and European races? If not, then natural selection, which would have been far less effective, could not have done so either. Back

20. Note in Section II, that as to most traits Caucasians are in between Africans and Mongoloids, which is expected since whites are more generalized than both tropics-specialized blacks and cold-specialized Asians; Australian Aborigines are both the most generalized people and the most primitive people. (Howells, 1948, p. 221). Thus, according to Rule 3 (Chap. 4), that generalized → specialized, all three races could have descended from an Australian Aborigine type, but whites could not have descended from Africans or Asians. Back

21. An interesting way to illustrate this would be to enter the faces of a Congoid, a European, and a NE Asian into a computer and count the number of steps required to morph each of them into the face of an ape (or vice versa). Back