1

Introduction

“ I know, that most who not only deem themselves as intelligent, but who are truly intelligent,
capable of understanding scientific, mathematical, and philosophical thoughts of higher
complexity, rarely can comprehend the most simple and obvious truth, but a truth of such
quality and form, in the event of which they would have to admit, that the conclusions they
have reached, aсquired, and made with big efforts, conclusions which they are proud of, on a
basis of which they built their life – that this conclusions can be false.”
L.N. Tolstoy

Anthropology, as a separate direction of science studying the man, (from greek anthropos –
man) , in its quest for determining the real and objective state of things and mechanism of
origin of humanity as whole, and human races in particular, sought to do so without having a
proper direction of search, which lead to incomplete answers, about who are we, from where
does our origin spring, and how did the modern humanity form, accounting for so much
diversity in the morphology1 of the human races.
Physical anthropology, according to Deniker I.E., it’s the science of investigation of the man,
as a biological organism, studying its characteristic morphological traits. There is needed to be
cleared out the question of the terminology, and how is it correct to racially group the humanity
according to traits, do we group it in races, subraces, types, subtypes ?
The definition of “how is it correct”, depends on the point of view of the one who is setting the
matter at hand, and what may be right for one, may seem untrue for another.
All opinions, generally, are divided between : is this one a distinct type/specie, or is it just
another variation or subtype? And where do we draw the line between the two?

To bring some clarity here, let’s set an initial stone upon which we will stand in this matter.
Should this starting point be a false one, sooner or later, as we continue, we will encounter
some inexplicable phenomenon, which will call for a full revision of the initial base.
In such way, a starting point, should precisely represent the observable reality, and be in
agreement with objective observations of other educated people (not necessarily of
academician education), in this matter. This starting point – should be so simple and obvious, in
such way that there would not be needed any proof to stand for its veracity.

An initial point of such, can serve the up brought Deniker’s definition, about that anthropology
is involved in the study and classification of man by certain somatological traits. These

1
Morphology – science studying the form and structure of any, in this case, of the human body.

2
somatological traits are morphological traits. Shortly, this is plainly a biological method of
categorizing one organism to a certain group. Thinking that anthropology studies only
observable, exterior traits that can be touched – may lead to confusion. Psychological, or
behavioral traits also make part of the studied traits, but as they can’t be seen or touched
directly, it makes it difficult for these to be brought up as examples. Even so, their imprints can
be traced in history and ethnography. But as this does not constitute the main object of this
book, we will leave such task to other researchers.
In contrast, morphological traits are easy to be seen and observe, and they will be used as
further examples. After the mechanisms will be unveiled and their way of function understood,
it will be relatively easy for one to add the psychological and behavioral traits, should an
interest as such arise.
Most anthropologists encountered a serious problem, in their quest for roots of humanity. As
they were capable of explaining local or regional manifestations of traits in groups of people,
such as their median skin tone, height or nose form, their explanations consequently found no
relevancy, or were simply inconsistent with manifestation of the same group of traits, in other
parts of the world. Some attempts in this direction were undertaken, but they, due to certain
circumstances, were not further developed by the broad academic community, and other works
of such were not made publically available. In other words, the anthropological school could not
present a clear answer why some people living in Caucasus had so alike looks as the so-called
American aborigines, or why do some Indians (Hindu), look alike many europeans.

«Aristotle, moreover, called attention to the fact that an acorn always grew into an oak tree
and not into a fig tree. This, of course, is the key biological problem. In other words, what is
the nature of the forces which guide the growth and development of an acorn so that it
ends up as a tree, and not as a horse ? These forces not only guide the growth of an acorn to
an oak tree, but also determine the uniqueness of any particular oak tree».2

Even if most anthropological works are of informational character, and while they contain at
times tons of information, they also lack of proper conclusions. But this is only a natural step
within the evolution of science, and all acquired material by the previous generations can be
used today to fill the encountered gaps.
It is necessary to give due to all the anthropological school, at least for the fact that it
accumulated an enormous amount of informational basis, with which is possible to work and
put any existing theory to test, thanks to these anthropological facts.

Different attempts of running a structuration of somatic traits, went by a simple principle. To

find physical features in people, and group this features as traits, and then find out who looks
alike who. A similar method was used by the called father of genetics – Gregory Mendel, when
he discovered the inheritance law.

2
Dr. H.S. Burr - “Blueprint for immortality – Electric patterns of Life” , p. 108

3
 But anthropologists, included in their classification systems a lot more different traits, when
creating these somatic groups (races or subraces), the fact of which resulted in difficulty of
telling which trait arose where, of course except those cases where the answer was so obvious
it needed no further investigation. In such way, it is plain clear that white skin tone is a
characteristic trait of the so-called caucasian or white race, and the eyes with double epicanthus
are a characteristic feature of the mongoloid race. At this point, most of all other traits, remain
under question regarding their origins.

After Charles Darwin’s proposal that the manifestation of some traits can be triggered by
environmental factors, quite lot of the science men adopted and raised this idea to absolute,
saying that any who changes his environment, sooner or later, will also change his somatic
features. By a similar pattern of thought, was reasoned the Out of Africa theory, the theory
which said that all people descend from one population which leaved Africa some 65 thousand
years ago, and did not interbred with other species, but acquired the variety of features by
changing the environment in which they lived.
But life shows us a distinct picture, no matter how much time will a white person live in a hot
climate zone, his skin tone will not grow darker (except tan), nor will his nose get flat. Why?
Because these, and all other somatic features, are determined by genes. The genes, are such a
thing that tell that all should be exactly this way, and not any way around it.
Let’s assume that the gene responsible, for say, the iris’ tone, can contain two or more variants
of this trait. This means, that in the same gene, the codes for both manifestations can be
contained : blue or brown irises. And individually, the code in the gene which determines, for
example, only the blue colour of the iris, is called an allele.
The only thing that can the environment do in this matter, is influence on the choosing to
actively use and read a certain allele. The environment does not create anything new, it can
only influence on the manifestation of what is already written in the genetic code.

And while some kind of custom setting of already existing traits is possible by the change of
environment, these changes will occur only within the frames of the available possibilities.
In other words, a representative of the mongoloid race will not be able to develop, not by night,
not even consequently in a million years – the trait of the ¨roman nose¨, if he has not the gene
that makes him able to manifest such feature. Some may say ¨but this is not so, there exists
evolution!¨ . While such a position and opinion has the right to exist, as a hypothesis or a
variant in a theory, practically such thing has not been yet observed. What has been observed
practically – is the natural or artificial selection and its influence on the fixation of traits,
responsible, at their most, for adaptation in a given environment. This is also known as the
specialization of organisms, and in most cases these adaptations are dictated by the
daily routine and the kind of food the organism feeds on.
Again, some may say - but this is the evolution! Such thoughts have their right to existence,
but their nature conflict with the observable reality. Why? It is plainly clear – these changes,
from universality to specialization, do not occur at once and in full mode, but they have a

4
consistent and gradual – cumulative character. Exactly what we do not see in nature. There
have not been found the intermediate forms between old and new types of different animals,
plants and insects. In layers of earth where fossils are found, we have old, archaic forms, after,
we have new forms, but no intermediate forms! We do not say that evolution as it is, it’s an
impossible phenomenon, rather we state, that we do not observe evolution in the history of
Earth. It is possible, that in some other place there are stored these intermediate types, but this
place is not on our Earth. And most probable, evolutionary jumps are not to be observed even
there, but only a gradual and consistent transformation which would last billions of years.
Of course, there are some variations throughout the observed fossils, but even variations of
such do not explain the rise of COMPLETELY NEW, NEVER BEFORE SEEN SPECIES IN
ANY FORM.
What we do observe, can be formulated as adaptive evolution , or as the dynamic of change
and re-fixation of already existing, and new acquired (not by means of evolution)
features and traits which are most stable within the given environment.
The conception of adaptation to the environment, explains the manifestation and fixation of
characteristic traits, which are involved within this process directly, and leads in time, as
natural selection occurs, to the STABLE manifestation of characteristic features.
But this conception of environmental adaptation, DOES NOT EXPLAIN the rise of new
species, and new, never before seen traits and features. In a simpler example, while it is
possible to customize a car that it could be used as a transport vehicle of small loads, by taking
out the back seats and by lifting up the suspension. But, is nearly impossible, to transform it
into a tractor, or a bicycle.

“Paleontologist George Poinar from Oregon State University(USA), discovered a bee

trapped in amber. The piece was found in Birma, in layers that relate to the beginning of
late Cretaceous, some 97-100 million years ago. To this day this is the oldest bee known
to scientists, this bee is older by 35-45 million years than previous samples.

The bee, found by Poinar, shows combined bee and wasp features. According to
paleontologists, the bees have emerged from wasps, and this bee seems to be one of the
oldest and most primitive the representatives of these insects. The researcher has
named the bee “Melittosphex burmensis”, and proposed to group it into a different family -
Melittosphecidae.

"This fossil may help us understand when wasps, which were mostly just carnivores,
turned into bees that could pollinate plants and serve a completely different
biological function," Poinar said in a press statement.

5
The find does come with one disappointing
sting: The bee is a male. Because only
female bees collect pollen, the fossil
might not yield many clues about exactly
how ancient bees pollinated plants3

The bee, as the “rhino-fly”, has a very small

size. As is appears, the plants on which
fed these insects, were also small. Poinar
supposes, that the bees, by adapting
themselves to nourish on flower nectar,
have triggered a stormy growth of the
flowering plants in Cretaceous. Before
the arrival of bees, flies and bugs were responsible for pollination, who definitely
played a role in reproduction of flowering plants, but bees have brought the
pollination to a whole new level. 4 “

Perhaps, it is necessary to make some remarks on the article. This bee, contained bee and
wasp features, because of the simple reason that differentiation by specialization ( because of
life style and kind of nourishment), and especially the fixation of characteristic traits, at that
time, at least for that population, did not yet occur.
This means that, supposedly, the initial population of wasps was a specialized
carnivore one, and then, by some unclear reasons, some of these wasps became
universalized (contained both wasps and bee features at the same time), and then, by
nourishing on pollen, and by interaction with the environmental stimuli, these “special” wasps
started to specialize, and by doing so they fixated their traits in such manner, that
they gradually transformed into bees, also gradually losing their wasp features.
Another remark on this would be the fact that it is still not yet clear, who did evolve from who,
and in which side did this transformation occur.

This reminds of another, similar story. Human-like apes of Africa, millions of years have
enjoyed fruits, leaves, nuts and roots, and then, by some unclear reasons, some of them
gradually evolved into another specie, started to cook their food on fire, and on top of that, had
turned mostly carnivore. Besides, the other human-like apes had continued to do what they
were doing before. There should be mentioned that here we also have the same feat. Those
hominids who had changed and started to cook their food, and also included meat in big
proportions in their menu, still continued to feed, from time to time, on fruits, nuts, mushrooms
and raw plants. Long story short, from specialized australopithecs, some of them transformed
into universalized erectus, who combined the two diets, and then these erectuses gradually

3
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/10/061025-oldest-bee.html
4
https://www.ammonit.ru/new/772.htm

6
started to specialize on meat (late erectus, neanderthals). What strange phenomenon is this?
So, this is not a single, isolate case, but some popular tendency?

In the first, as in the second case, we should comment, that not everything is easy and clear.
George Poinar made a fair statement: “..turned into bees that could pollinate plants and
serve a completely different biological function"

For this to be possible, we ought to understand, that was needed a full restructuration of the
whole organism, change of the metabolic functions, and forming of new features and qualities,
that would support the new lifestyle in such way, that the system (organism), wouldn’t crash.
As the position of every cell in the body, is determined by the DNA code, so, it is appropriate to
conclude, that every restructuration, will entail the change of the genetic code. It can be said
otherwise. Any change in the genetic code – turns into a restructuration of the organism, in
some way or proportion. And creation of new traits or features – it is not an usual
restructuration, yet such probability exists in a certain case. Before we proceed any further, let
us learn what probability is that.
The possibility that a common restructuration of the DNA code will manifest as new, never
before observed traits in one organism, it is likely only if these new expressed features are
coded by “sleeping genes”5, which, by some reason, “awoke” and were turned on.
In this case, at least the majority of individuals of the said population, should’ve also
transformed, even if at different speed. Exactly what we do not observe not only with the bees,
but also with the Erectus. Only a few – became bees (or wasps), and only a few – erectuses.
The fact of which, makes this probability highly unlikely.

So, the creation of new traits – is introduction or acquirement of new sectors within
the DNA, which previously the given organism did not have.

Afterwards, there was the natural selection of the transformed organisms, and bearers of most
successfully adapted combinations of the actively involved genes, left offspring, and with time,
these traits grew fixed, creating different subtypes.
In the course of this specialization, some alleles were more favorable than others, so they
started to get a fixated position in a given sequence. Generally, this is how the difference
between wasps and bees came to be. As you see, the environment does not form any new
traits, it can only contribute in the manifestation or suppression of ones or other already
existing alleles in the genetic code. It can make some local, insignificant correction related to
adaptation, at most. Surely, the man may own a higher genetic plasticity than does the wasp-
bee, but even so, by initially placing some groups of people from the same population, in
distinct environments, there should pass billions of years before they will change and then fix
some unique traits in their sequences, traits which should differ from those of others. And for

5
“Sleeping” genes – are actually inactive, or dormant alleles. A sector of a gene, can contain the code for two or
more variants of the same feature. One such variant is called an allele.

7
these traits to gain such diversity, as there are varieties in morphological and psychological
traits of modern people, these environments should be distinctive, unique worlds-ecosystems.

At least by this examples, the curious reader can remark, that the evolution (transformation) of
one specie into another with the gain of new features, as a consequence of interaction with the
environment, is, at least highly improbable, if not impossible.
These examples, such that of the Erectus and wasps, cannot be taken as exceptions, but
patterns, as this same process may be observed in relation to most living beings on our planet.6
From where do new traits come? From where do new species come? On this, there are many
theories. On the first question, we will answer a bit later. On the second question – may any
who are interested in this matter, think for themselves.

6
See “Cambrian explosion”.

8
Inheritance law

The only postulate, taken as such here, and that will not be tried for proof, is that – distinct
traits and features in people, such as morphological and behavioral, have at least a biological,
bio-chemical, and genetic basis. But this also does not constitute a postulate in full manner, as
a study from different sources of the given differences, including sources such as papers of
study and research in genetics from the last two decades, easily transform this “given
postulate” into a documented and proven fact.
What does it mean that traits have a genetic basis?
It means, that traits are determined, by the genetic code, which is inherited from parents. This
is why “an acorn always grows into an oak, and not a fig tree”.
Otherwise said, in everything there is a cause-consequence connection, and everything happens
for a reason.

That, which we have on this day, in the form of diversity of human traits and features in
morphology – are phenotypes. 7

A phenotype, is a certain combination of traits of the inherited genetic code, in the form of fixed
features, with their characteristic qualities and properties, which are transmitted by inheritance.
Let’s take, for example, two popular phenotypes : mediterranean and nordic.
Common traits – elongated face, thin nose, long head.
Distinctive traits – mediterraneans have darker skin tones and hair colour, nordics have light
skin tone and hair colour.
These two phenotypes, stand very close one to another, so as their morphology is almost
identical, meaning they look very much alike, aside the pigmentation.
Their morphology is so alike, because most of their observed traits, are characteristic to their
types, so as for one, as for the other.
And the number of features that differ in these two phenotypes, is much lower than the
number of traits that unite them. From this, a simple conclusion comes out – as the traits have
a genetic basis, mediterraneans and nordics have a common genetic root, or common
ancestors. This now concluded fact was proven by genetic studies, and it is so obvious, that we
will dwell no further on it.

7
Phenotype – the sum of expressed, dominant traits, read from the genetic code and manifested.

9
So, the two types, are close to one another, because they have a common genetic basis, and
their slightly distinct phenotypes – are different combinations of the common genotype 8.

This conclusion is also attested, if we observe more traits in the two phenotypes.
As the root of distinct variations of traits, is left only the genetic code. But a population living in
a certain environment and not having contacts with other species, inevitably is ,or becomes, in
time, homozygous, meaning it has or gets to have, an identical in all directions genetic code,
becomes genetically homogenous.
But as the common ancestor of two phenotypes, could not have so distinct variants of
features, and be at the same time genetically homogenous, meaning it couldn’t have at
the same time and olive skin tone and a white skin, or straight and wavy hair, from which
results, that there must have been at least two sources of distinct variants of traits.
The nordic phenotype, and mediterranean phenotype, are two closely related phenotypes,
which express slightly distinct features, from which, on some positions, there are actively
manifested alleles which differ by their properties and qualities. And different by qualities and
properties alleles for the same position, are determined, mostly, by the heterozygous nature of
the genes, this means interbreeding of parents with distinct phenotypes, which pass to the
offspring different forms for the same sector of the code. In such way, as the expression of two
forms at the same time – in most cases – is plainly impossible, one form (allele), becomes
actively manifested (dominant), and the other or others, passive or unexpressed (recessive).
Of course, there is still the option of acquiring a mutation or change in the code by adapting to
the environment, without interbreeding with other species. But this process does not fit here,
because for this ought to pass tens, if not hundreds of millions of years, in other cases even
billions of years, and the so-called adaptive evolution of humankind does not dispose of
timeframes so large. 9
The difference by quantity of distinct positions in the genetic code by which these two parents
are dissimilar, determines how close or far genetically, are they one from another. The
difference by few positions, as in our case with mediterraneans and nordics, determines them
as representatives of the one specie or sub-specie, but one such subspecie, that either
separated long ago into two groups, which, by adaptation to the environment, had changed
little parts of the genetic code, with this gathering differentiation of features. Or, what is more
probable, some representatives of the initial specie or subspecie, had acquired in their genetic
codes, “implanted sectors”, inherited from the time when one of their parents or ancestors
interbred with a representative of a distinct specie (subspecie).
The time of rise of Sapiens around the mediterranean, stands between 200-300 thousand years
ago (40-60 thousand years ago by other sources), which surely is not enough for the so-called

8
Genotype – the sum of all allele of the genes(distinct variants of the same features), which are genetically
inherited
9
This is confirmed by the fact, that groups of white people, who immigrated in tropical countries in the past, have
not changed their anthropological phenotypes, even hundreds of years past their environmental change. But just
as some groups or individuals of the groups have interbred with native populations, their offspring suddenly
expressed traits of the native population, even if in small proportions.

10
“adaptation” to the environment and as a consequence of such - the change in the genetic
code. The nordic phenotype, according to sources available at present, appeared a lot later in
the same part of the Earth. Between discovered remains of “anatomically modern humans” of
paleolithic, there are some which would easily fit in the modern mediterranean population, but
which also show such variation of traits between themselves, alike the modern representatives
of mediterranean race. Meaning one may have an eagle nose, another a straight nose, and the
third a snub one. And some nordics, may differ by some of their manifested features between
themselves more, than do some nordics differ of some mediterraneans.
From all this, may be concluded that: The mediterranean type had risen with heterogeneity, or
it wasn’t homogenous from its very start, as it had dissimilar sectors in the genetic code, which
shows, that this mediterreanean phenotype, from its origin – it’s a hybrid of either two very
genetically far sub-specie of the same specie, or of two distinct species of the same genus.

The whole combination of alleles on all positions of both mediterreaneans and nordics
altogether, makes up the genotype of both phenotypes, which represents, even in a dissimilar
way and proportion - the indicator of the initial phenotypes of populations before their
interbreeding. If we amplify this, and include here all phenotypes of people - what we will
receive on the outcome, would be the genotypical map of all populations of earth, with all their
possible combinations, manifesting most different kind of observable traits. But this would not
be so practical, as we know that some anthopological phenotypes, show such traits that are not
localized in others. And otherwise, some phenotypes lack of some traits that are present and
characteristic for other populations. So, conducting a study at so ample proportions, at this time
at least, is early and inappropriate, we need to go by a gradual and consistent way. Let us try
to understand why is that an acorn, always grows into an oak, and not a fig tree.

As an example, let’s bring up something known to each. Let’s say, that the construction of a
house, is analogical to the construction of a living organism, in our case – the human organism.

The genotype, in this case, will be the sum of all distinct available construction materials at
hand. And the phenotype - the final look, type and form of the house, made of certain materials
put in a certain succession. The type of the house (phenotype), also will be determined by the
mechanism which control its manifestation or expression – the so-called existing conditions, in
which also enter the conditions of the environment. The influence of these conditions, must be
strong enough to change the initial design. The phenotype, in other words, will be manifested
in accordance with conditions, like such – did the father give directions on the process of
constructions, or did the mother instruct the workers, what quality did the soil had on top of
which the house was built: was it sand-like, rock-like or alike lime. As conditions, are also
included the availability of construction materials in the process, did the truck with new
materials come in time, or was it late?
Also the state of wetness or dryness of the ground, was there rain, snow, wind, or heat.

11
Homogenous variants-alleles of a certain gene, are, in our analogy, pieces of the same
type of material, for sector of the house, of which this part can be built – of wood, stone,
brick, concrete, steel and glass. As it happens, a house is mostly constructed not of one, but of
many materials in combination. This combination can sometimes take place in layers, and
sometimes by pieces, and other times, by joining the two methods.
Houses with which we are accustomed, generally are built in layers, meaning – the base is
made of rock or concrete, walls of bricks, and the roof of a wood case covered in roof tile. A
structuration of materials in such manner, is considered most economic and longstanding, and
is easy for the very process of construction, because the materials are being grouped. Any
constructor will say, that is more easy to mount a brick on top of another, than, say, mount a
log on top of bricks, and then the mounting bricks again on top of the log. But in the process of
construction, it may happen that at the moment of the rise of a wall, there would be no bricks
around, but a piece of rock, which the constructor will use, trying to fit this rock in most
possible harmonic way so it would match with the brick wall. In similar manner, because of
torrential rains, the constructor may take the decision of mounting the roof-case out of metal
but not of wood, because in the given conditions, such decision is most suited and most
energy-saving. The sum and diversity of all initially available materials – genotype. Used
materials in the construction of parts of the house – actively enabled alleles, or the so-called
dominant traits. The final look of the house which was built of multiple types of materials, in
layers, or in pieces, or by both ways combined – is the phenotype.
In other words, the phenotype is one actively manifested combination of traits out of
genotype’s multiple possible combinations, the succession and position of which are
determined by outside and inside influencing factors.
As the phenotype (type of the house), is determined by the genotype (the available materials
from which the house will be built), and by influencing factors, in such way, the minimum
resistance and maximum success will be attained by building a log house in the woods, a rock
house in the mountains, a limestone brick house in semi-desert or steppe. And because our
constructor always goes by the way of minimum resistance and maximum stability, in this he is
much alike with how a biological organism is built.
In this way, each time our constructor will start to build, he will erect the house it in such way,
so minimal efforts are put, with maximum efficiency, and he’ll make use of the materials he has
at hand at the moment. And acting accordingly to the present state of the environment, and the
climate conditions which may arise in the process of the building, our constructor will do the
best possible job in the given circumstances. All these variables, give a general picture of all
their possible combinations. Even after that the erection of the house will end, and the
constructor will give the keys to the new owner, the construction will continue in minimal
proportions – already in the form of maintenance works, which will not be able to change
generally the look of the house, but which, from time to time, will introduce little, insignificant
changes.

Similar variables, as the above mentioned elements of environmental influence, are actively
involved in the formation of the human organism. But these variables, broadly, only influence

12
on the predisposition of one or another variant of a gene, for it to be expressed, never forming
new traits. And if apparently new traits will be expressed, these will be mostly only the
combinations of two or more, already existing and inherited traits by the offspring from the
parents.
Here again we mention the possibility of an individual development of a new trait from an old
trait, as a consequence of adapting to existing factors, the process of which will last millions, if
not billions of years. Also there is a faster way to be mentioned, say, the development of a new
traits out of an old one, by the influence of a powerful factor, like radiation. But the first way
would take so long, that, its time frame does not fit with ours, and the second way has a very
low success rate. 10

These factors, which influence on the expression of one or another allele, can be conditionally
distinguished as external and internal. External factors are those which influence on the human
organism from outside, producing changes in the inside of it. Internal factors, are those which
express themselves inside the body, and influence on it in a direct way. Of course, the power of
impact of the second is way greater than that of the first, because of which, we will list them,
starting with the internal ones.

If we take, for example – the moment of conception, as internal factors can be listed:

 Emotional-psychological state of both parents, level of contamination of their organisms,

especially that of the future mother.
 Inherited succession of the genetic code of the parents and their fixated traits, the so-
called genetic predisposition.

As external factors, can be mentioned:

 Contamination level of the environment with high frequency radiation – electricity

transmission lines, wireless technologies like Wi-Fi, GSM, radio, television
 Contamination of environment with toxic wastes and heavy elements
 Geographical location, the presence of natural geo-pathogenic zones, which are
common around tectonic plates’ joint.
 Solar activity, cosmic radiations and so on

As “emotional-psychological state of both parents”, it is understood the level of their

psychological stability, and those emotions present at the time of conception of the new

10
The extinction of a said population, in the long run, will occur most probably not so much because of the high
radiation intake, as from the accumulation of errors within the genetic code, which, with every new generation,
will result in a decreasing viability and survival. The number of changes (mutations) with negative effect, in this
case, will be much higher than the number of positive changes, and again, even if the said population does not go
extinct, it will need millions of years to weed out the negative changes. That, of course, if the given population,
which has been exposed to a necessary quantity of radiation for its genes to mutate in a radical change of
phenotype, will by a miracle stay alive.

13
organism. And as “ level of contamination of their organisms, especially that of the future
mother” – the current state of their bodies – the type of nourishment, the level of
contamination with toxins and heavy elements, the presence of diseases, viruses, pathogenic
infections and bacteria, the state of their endocrine system, level of impurity of their blood and
lymphatic system, the state of their internal organs.

To this day, there are multiple proofs that clearly show a relation between the emotional and
psychological state of human and the quality of functioning of the body. On this, we will dwell
no further, but quote one observed and documented fact in lab conditions, brought up by
doctor Leonard J. Ravitz:

'Both emotional activity and stimuli of any sort involve mobilization of electric energy, as
indicated on the galvanometer. Hence, both emotions and stimuli evoke the same energy.
Emotions can be equated with energy.'11

As genetic predisposition, it is understood the tendency of one or another allele to be actively

manifested. Some of these alleles which save their properties of manifestation from generation
to generation, are also called dominant alleles, or fixated traits. Another definition of such
– genetical imprints. The most basic example which can be brought – is the predisposition of
some people who in their ancestral line have some characteristic features, such as an unique
form of the chin or nose, which repeats itself from generation to generation, which is mostly – a
consequence of imprints, of fixed traits. This principle is viable for a variety of other expressed
traits. Even if, statistically, some alleles of the same gene have a higher tendency to express,
they can be suppressed by the “sleeping” alleles when certain conditions are met. So, when
these settings are met, the sleeping alleles become active and suppress the others, as a result
that favourable conditions for such, have appeared.

On the influence of high frequency electromagnetic fields on development and health of

organisms, there were conducted a great number of experiments, as in field, as well as lab
conditions, and all of them showed a clear, negative impact.

“An experiment has been made exposing eggs and tadpoles of the common frog (Rana
temporaria) to electromagnetic radiation from several mobile (cell) phone antennae
located at a distance of 140 meters. In the exposed group (n = 70), low coordination of
movements, an asynchronous growth, resulting in both big and small tadpoles, and a high
mortality (90%) was observed. Regarding the control group (n = 70) under the same
conditions but inside a Faraday cage, the coordination of movements was normal, the
development was synchronous, and a mortality of 4.2% was obtained. These results

11
“Blueprint for immortality – Electric patterns of Life” – dr. Harold S. Burr p.89

14
indicate that radiation emitted by phone masts in a real situation may affect the
development and may cause an increase in mortality of exposed tadpoles. “12

Latest discoveries in the field of epigenetics show, that even an already formed organism, as is
the human being, is also prone to be influenced of the electromagnetic radiation of diverse
kinds, and that such impact can easily provoke errors in the coding and reading of the code at
protein synthesis, which leads to a diverse amount of pathologies and errors in development,
including oncological diseases. A curious reader can investigate this matter and easily prove for
himself the veracity of the said above.

As the geographical location, it is understood the value of Earth’s magnetic field, and the
proximity to diverse kinds of geopathogenic zones, which have been observed, recorded,
measured and documented multiple times around where tectonic plates joints, mountains,
vulcanoes, some lakes and other locations. Even if the man, to this day, is mostly adapted to
the impact of values of Earth’s magnetic field, variations of distinct amplitudes and continuity
can influence on the human body in the form of violations of certain biological processes, or on
the human psyche, in the form of violations of perceptions.

Now, being familiar with most diverse kinds of factors which can impact on the natural
development of new life, in other words, of a living organism, in our case – the human being, a
new question arises. If there exists a predisposition for every living being which sets a
stable distribution and renew of cells of the said organism in a certain order, and
this predisposition can suffer changes in its structure because of influence of the
environment, from where does this predisposition arise and how is it initially
structured? How is this mechanism of location built?
Yes, all we have heard about genes, that they are responsible for the existence of traits, but
genes are only a source of information, in which, at times, there are multiple variants for the
same feature. Some may say “ it’s the environment which influences on genes and it chooses
most adapted alleles to the current situation”. Yes – this, is undoubtedly so. But again – this
explains only partially the manifestation of the initially expressed traits in a
developing organism, but later when the organism is fully developed and when there is a
change of one command of a trait for another, it does not respond to it in the moment,
but requires consistent and insistent pressure over time for it to change, or
tremendous amounts of energy of pressure for a sudden change. What mechanism is
responsible for this acquired resistance to change? In the same manner, what is the
mechanism that holds together the entire system in which the cells are constantly
renewed? Is it the same mechanism responsible for both things?
What is the nature of this structure which arranges all information contained by genes, in a
stable system named a living organism?

12
Balmori A. – “Mobile phones effect on the common frog” - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20560769

15
It so results, that this information is structured in some way, and it draws the way and place for
each cell, with its given properties and qualities. If we are to bring the analogy with the house,
then, why is this house built in exactly this manner? Why does it have only one floor and
a basement, and not two floors? Why is the roof of tile, but not of wood, or even brick? What
exactly says it will be built this way, and not the other?
In this case, the cause is plainly clear for most. Of course, the main reason that this brick
stands here and not elsewhere, is the hand of the builder that put it there, or the builder
himself that acts accordingly to the design of the architect. He, from all the available materials,
will build the house exactly according to the design, and will put that brick here and not any
place else. This is clear about the house. What does this mean, that there exists some builder
which directs the development of every living organism?

For long, the modern medicine, and science generally, had encountered a serious obstacle,
which generated such the following question. How and why, from a fertilized egg, develops a
multi-cellular organism, the cells of which are diverse by composition, structure and function,
when this very initial cell divides itself into two exact copies and proceeds to do so later?
On this question, there has already been found an answer, by doctor Harold S. Burr.
Unfortunately, his works are not well known, but this does not take credit away from his
discovery.

“Dr. Burr discovered that all living things - from men to mice, from trees to seeds - are molded
and controlled by electro-dynamic fields, which could be measured and mapped with standard
voltmeters. These "fields of life," or L-fields, are the basic blueprints of all life on this planet.
Their discovery is of immense significance to all of us. Dr. Burr believed that, since
measurements of L-field voltages can reveal physical and mental conditions, doctors should be
able to use them to diagnose illness before symptoms develop, and so would have a better
chance of successful treatment.” 13

"Electro-dynamic fields are invisible and intangible; and it is hard to visualize them. But a
crude analogy may help to show what the fields of life - L-fields for short - do and why they
are so important. Most people who have taken high school science will remember that if
iron filings are scattered on a card held over a magnet, they will arrange themselves in the
pattern of the 'lines of force' of the magnet's field. And if the filings are thrown away and
fresh ones scattered on the card, the new filings will assume the same pattern as the old.
Something like this happens in the human body. Its molecules and cells are constantly
being torn apart and rebuilt with fresh material from the food we eat. But, thanks to the
controlling L-fields, the new molecules and cells are rebuilt as before and arrange

13
This text was quoted from:
http://www.wrf.org/men-women-medicine/dr-harold-s-burr.php

16
themselves in the same pattern as the old ones.”

"Until modern instruments revealed the existence of the controlling L-fields, biologists
were at a loss to explain how our bodies 'keep in shape' through ceaseless metabolism and
changes of material. Now the mystery has been solved: the electro-dynamic field of the
body serves as a matrix or mould which preserves the 'shape' or arrangement of any
material poured into it, however often the material may be changed.”

“ We explored the fields of a frog's eggs-as mentioned in the first chapter-not only to satisfy
ourselves that something so small and relatively simple possessed a field but also to find
support for our theory that the field controls the growth and development of the form.
Using micro-pipettes filled with salt solution and connected to the voltmeter we found
different voltage gradients across different axes of the eggs. We marked the axis of the
largest voltage gradient with spots of Nile blue sulphate and later found, as the eggs
developed, tha t the frog's nervous system always grew along the axis with the highest
voltage gradient. This was an indication that the field is primary-the matrix that shapes the
living form.”

“It was found from these measurements that there was one point on the equator which
showed a marked increase in the voltage drop between the reference electrode and the
point. The latter was marked with a spot of Nile blue sulphate so that it could be followed
through the subsequent period of development. It was found-as our theory had suggested-
that the point on the equator which marked the greatest voltage drop from the animal pole
marked the head end of the developing salamander.” 14

The mould-matrix is popularily called now the ether body. The ether body IS that same matrix,
which as Dr. Burr tells “electro-dynamic field of the body serves as a matrix or mould
which preserves the 'shape' or arrangement of any material poured into it“.

The manifestation of the same field, was first photographer in 1939(patent in 1949), by the
russian scientist of armenian descent S.D. Kirlian(together with his wife V.H. Kirlian). 15

Bringing up again the analogy of the house and the builder, let us say that the house needs
maintenance works and change of some parts of the building every few years, in the same
manner how cells of the organism are renewed after their life cycle ends.
Our builder, at the time of the initial erection of the house, will mount a wooden mould, in
which he will pour the concrete or lime mixed with hay, and this mould will basically have the
interior form of the future house to be, with all the general details. The wooden mould, is in our
case that same matrix, or as dr. Burr named it – Life field.
14
H.S. Burr - «Blueprint for Immortality – Electric patterns of life», p. 12, 13, 61, 63.
15
The Kirlian effect and the experiment with the torn leaf – is a great example of the given phenomenon

17
The builder, in our case, when he will finish the house’s construction, will not unmount the
wooden mould, but will leave it be. As the time will pass, the parts of the house which went out
of order, will easily be replaced by new ones, not changing the initial look of the house. That is
the principle of the Life Field.
In the process of construction, and of later use, some minor changes can appear as a
consequence of owner’s needs, or as a result of reaction with interior and exterior environment,
but these changes will be of insignificant, and most of local character. These changes in the
mould and house, will not deviate majorly from the initial look of the house.

It so would seem everything seems clear now. But how does this field of life or mould comes to
be? The review of this particular question does not enter within the goals of this book,
nevertheless, there can be said something about it.
So as the genetic information is the material holding the designs of incarnation of the physical
body, and the mould L-field is the mechanism of structuration of this information, all is left is to
find out what is the source that triggers this process.
In other words, we have the parts, we have the designs and the tools, all is left is to find the
mechanic who would put his effort and energy into putting the car together. In our case, we
ought to find the driving force, which equals energy and turns all this into action.

Some energetic potential, develops this matrix according to the genetic material which is
contained in the fertilized egg. This is similar to that how a flashlight creates an image on the
wall, by lighting on a frame. In our case, the flashlight is that same energetic potential, the
frame – genetic material, and the projection on the wall is that same Life field, or the matrix-
ethereal body, by the likeness of which, later the physical body will appear or develop. The light
passing through the frame, hits the wall, and then reflects back. At the midway between the
light reflected by the wall, and the light coming in from the flashlight past the frame, will
appear a hologram. From one side, this hologram will be composed of the unchanged image of
the frame. And from another side, the hologram will contain also the image reflected back by
the wall, which will be a bit changed, compared to the initial one, because by reflecting on the
wall, the light will lose a part of its luminescence, and the image may suffer minor changes,
because of the quality of the reflective surface. A good remark here would be that the wall, can
be compared to the sum of all acting variables of the environment, and that depending on the
quality and properties of such, the reflected back image will be better visible, or more diffuse,
and will have one property, or another, which will influence the quality of the hologram to be –
or the human physical body.16

16
For more information on how the hologram-physical cell react, see Nikolai Levashov’s “Сущность и Разум 1-2”

18
What is this energetic potential and where does it come from? How strange it may seem – but
we have all the reasons to state that the energetic potential which triggers all life processes in
an organism, has been known for a long time already – this potential is called a soul.
A curious reader may get acquainted with the research of the documented flash in the time of
fertilisation of a human egg, which is only a material manifestation of the activation on a
physical level, observed in a biochemical process. 17 Also another paper on the electromagnetic
flash phenomenon observed at the time of death. 18

Resume

So, lets make a quick resume. All biological organisms own a matrix of fine electromagnetic
fields which make up the image of the said organism from its genetic material. The genetic
material is the sum of all existing genes that one organism owns, inherited from its parents.
Genes are what determine the features. Inside the genes, at times are included a few alleles
that code the same part, which are distinct variants of the same feature. Distinct alleles for the
same trait, most of the time, are there as a consequence of interbreeding, or the breeding of
organisms with slight distinct features. Genotype – is the sum of all POSSIBLE available
variants in manifestation of the genetic material. The phenotype – is one manifested variant
from all available variants, which after its development can suffer in most cases, only

17
«The zinc spark is an inorganic signature of human egg activation» - Duncan, Que, Zhang.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016NatSR...624737D
18
“Electromagnetic Radiation And The Afterlife” Janusz Slawinski, Sc.D.
http://newdualism.org/nde-papers/Slawinski/Slawinski-Journal%20of%20Near-Death%20Studies_1987-6-79-
94.pdf

19
insignificant, local changes.
The factors which influence the creation and development of the matrix, which later determines
the development and growth of the physical dense body:

 Quality available genetic material with all possible manifestations, inherited

predisposition of gene-alleles expression, also known as dominant-recessive character of
traits

 The state and conditions of external and internal environment at the time of
conception(physical-psychological state of parents and the quality state of the
environment)

 Electromagnetic fields acting on the field of the given organism, such as: bio fields of
other people, urban electromagnetic pollution, antennas, satellites, geographical
location, geo-pathogenic zones, cosmic radiation

All these variables, under direction of the L-field, condition which variants of the genes will be
expressed. But the traits to manifest are only the traits already contained in the genetic code,
which is inherited directly from the parents. This process of development and change of the
matrix field and of the proper organism continues for the whole life, as the organism interacts
with the environment, as external, so as internal.

20
 At crossroads

“Here we analyze DNA from a 37,000–42,000-year-old modern human from “Pestera cu

Oase”, Romania. We find that on the order of 6–9% of the genome of the Oase individual is
derived from Neanderthals, more than any other modern human sequenced to date.”

“ Subsequent excavations uncovered a cranium from another, probably contemporaneous

individual, Oase 2, which also carries morphological traits that could reflect admixture with
Neanderthals ” 19

“ We conclude that in addition to later interbreeding events, the ancestors of Neanderthals

from the Altai Mountains and early modern humans met and interbred, possibly in the
Near East, many thousands of years earlier than previously thought. ”20

“ Early descriptions of the hominins from Jebel Irhoud (Morocco) emphasized similarities
with Neanderthals; however, recent analyses demonstrate a number of synapomorphies
shared with modern humans, establishing the presence of H. sapiens sensu stricto in
North Africa 130,000–190,000 years before present (ybp).”21

“ Ancient DNA from archaic hominins has revealed a rich history of admixture between
early modern humans, Neanderthals, and Denisovans.”22

“Some present-day humans derive up to ∼5% [ 1 ] of their ancestry from archaic

Denisovans, an even larger proportion than the ∼2% from Neanderthals … In Oceanians,
the average size of Denisovan fragments is larger than Neanderthal fragments, implying a
more recent average date of Denisovan admixture in the history of these populations. ”23

“Modern humans arrived in Europe ~45,000 years ago, but little is known about their
genetic composition before the start of farming ~8,500 years ago. Here we analyse
genome-wide data from 51 Eurasians from ~45,000–7,000 years ago. Over this time, the
proportion of Neanderthal DNA decreased from 3–6% to around 2%, consistent with
natural selection against Neanderthal variants in modern humans. ”24

19
“An early modern human from Romania with a recent Neanderthal ancestor” - Qiaomei Fu, 2015.
20
“ Ancient gene flow from early modern humans into Eastern Neanderthals” – Martin Kuhlwilm, 2016
21
“ Earliest evidence of modern human life history in North African early homo sapiens” – Tanya M. Smith, 2006
22
“ Ancient DNA and human history” – Montgomery Slatkin, Fernando Racimo - 2015
23
“The combined landscape of Denisovan and Neanderthal ancestry in present-day humans” – S. Sankararaman,
2016
24
“The genetic history of Ice Age Europe” - Qiaomei Fu, 2016.

21
 “The findings increase the number of Neandertal variants identified within populations of
modern humans, and they suggest that a larger number of phenotypic and disease related
variants with Neandertal ancestry remain in the modern Eurasian gene pool than
previously thought… We sequenced the genome of a female Neandertal from ~50,000
years ago from Vindija Cave, Croatia… Our analyses indicate that she was more closely
related to the Neandertals that mixed with the ancestors of present-day humans living
outside of sub-Saharan Africa than the previously sequenced Neandertal from Siberia,
allowing 10 to 20% more Neandertal DNA to be identified in present-day humans,
including variants involved in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations,
schizophrenia, and other diseases.”25

“The origins of the First Americans remain contentious. Although Native Americans seem
to be genetically most closely related to east Asians, there is no consensus with regard to
which specific Old World populations they are closest to. Here we sequence the draft
genome of an approximately 24,000-year-old individual (MA-1), from Mal’ta in south-
central Siberia, to an average depth of 1×. To our knowledge this is the oldest anatomically
modern human genome reported to date. The MA-1 mitochondrial genome belongs to
haplogroup U, which has also been found at high frequency among Upper Palaeolithic and
Mesolithic European hunter-gatherers and the Y chromosome of MA-1 is basal to modern-
day western Eurasians and near the root of most Native American lineages”26

These are only some quotes of the few brought up papers, of the many existing today on
interbreeding between archanthropes and Sapiens. In the last decades, genetic researches,
have discovered direct and indirect proof of mating between many species of the genus Homo.
The result of which, manifested itself in the phenotypical diversity of the so called “anatomically
modern humans”. Undoubtedly, the biggest part in this belongs to Sapiens, but this fact does
not cancel, nor diminish the presence, and the part of the genetic input, from diverse types of
archanthropes, in the gene pool of modern people. Exactly this part of the contribution and is
responsible for morphological and other differences in people, in our case – distinct phenotypes.
This is what earlier, and now too, are called, races of man.
This is no news, similar theories on the origin of man, through hybridization, did exist earlier,
but the main argument against it, was that the man and distinct primates, archaic hominins
included – were not capable of producing offspring. Afterwards, the science has taken a distinct
path and stated that modern humans are evolved archanthropes as a result of interaction with

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature17993
25
” A high-coverage Neandertal genome from Vindija Cave in Croatia” - Kay Prüfer, Cesare de Filippo, 2017.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/358/6363/655
26
“Upper Palaeolithic Siberian genome reveals dual ancestry of Native Americans” – Raghavan, Skoglund, 2014.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12736

22
the environmental, which is right – but only in part. But before proceeding any further, let us
examine the possibility or impossibility of the interbreeding with creation of hybrid offspring
between distinct species of the genus Homo.
Those, who stated, that such a hybridization would outcome in a failure, were in part right, but
only in part. And here is why: for example, some children born from the interbreeding of
Neanderthals or Erectuses with Sapiens, it happened, were born with physical or psychical
deviations, and rarely survived and left offspring, we’re mostly ill, some of who were totally
infertile – but all this was not an absolute phenomenon – but a normal and expected
outcome at interbreeding of distant species, which have enough similar genes to breed and
produce offspring, but too few of them to ensure their offspring a good combinations of
genetics, or otherwise said, safe combinations.
Between all this, there were and more viable, hybrid offspring representatives, which have
inherited a relatively safe combination of traits. By this, it ensured them, and most of their
offspring in return – the survival and successful transfer of fixed features.
Exactly these inherited, relatively “safe and successful” combination of traits, of other
representatives of the genus Homo and of Sapiens, resulted in today’s variety of human races.
Of course, there must’ve been some “unsafe”, or adverse combinations, such as predispositions
to schizophrenia or diabetes, like those inherited from Neanderthals, but these other relatively
hostile combinations, did not have an impact so great, as to effectively stop those who owned it
from successful breeding or survival.
Here is what wrote on interbreeding a thinker of the past century:

“And here, the natural obstacles, standing in front of dividing human races into a certain
number of species, made the school of monogenists state and recognize the unity of the
human kind, i.e. the belonging of all humanity to one specie.

This teaching is based on the following principles, which at the same time are held as
characteristic for the whole zoological kind: 1) fertility between all human races at
breeding; 2) similarity in body structure of all people and in their religious behavior; 3) a
continuous line of constant steps between all varieties of man 4) the impossibility to
determine by the study of a bone to which race or specie it belongs.

But here we encounter new obstacles: “ Animals, belonging to one kind, although of their
individual distinctions, can easily be grouped into to a type with clearly set features.
Between them we always encounter such representatives which get very close to the set
type of their specie. But this is not viable not for the human. His physical and psychical
distinctions are so great, that there exists no possibility to set a common type of the
specie. Substantial differentiation of the human from animals is in that, that the variation
of his organism ranges between considerable larger frames, rather than animals’. “The
distinction between an English man and a black man of the Golden Shore, - said Achelis – is
so great, as between the brown bear with his rounded forehead, and the white bear with

23
his light coat and his elongated flat skull”.
From the entire up brought is clear, that our theory has the right to existence, because the
question on the classification of humankind is still not settled by science.
Further, theories of polygenists and monogenists, cannot exist together at the same time,
just as because they mutually exclude one another, so as because there is only one truth.
Each of these theories, taken apart, also has no right to existence, so as each one has only
part of the truth, and both of them have facts, which are not explained by them. To find the
truth, we have no other remedy, than take from each theory only that, which is
indisputable, and refuting everything else. But if we do so, then it results, that “humankind
makes one specie, but a special one, a kind of specie never seen in the whole animal
kingdom. His characteristic feature is in that, that this specie splits into many groups, which
just as they have some common traits, they also own differences, which are taken in all
animal kingdom as difference between species”. But what kind is this?

It is obvious – a hybrid one, because only this explains and accords with all
conditions. A united kind, because no matter how many types or species of
pithecanthropus27 went in the mix, their offspring are connected between them by
the common blood of the white pre-flood man. It consists of many groups, or races, in
which have entered all possible combinations of purebred species, which are coming closer
or further from the white man. The most farfetched groups of the kind, are dramatically
distinct between themselves, because in ones dominate the traits of white man, in others –
the traits of pithecanthropus.

Therefore, anthropological data not only does not deny our situation, but rightly confirms
that mankind is a hybrid type. “Our pets, "said Darwin — “different breeds in mutual
crossing, result perfectly fertile, and meanwhile they are descended from two or more
species.
We must either abandon the faith in general infertility of species at crossing, or look at
infertility in animals not as a sign of an indelible nature, but one which can be removed by
domestication ... Avoiding the conclusion that some species are quite fertile when crossing,
we can only do, by calling varieties (not species), all forms, quite prolific among
themselves.”

But this category of phenomena will be even clearer before us if we get acquainted with
the facts, that the well-known French anthropologist Broca, collected about crossing or
hybridism in animals.

27
Pitechanthropus – equals to Homo Erectus

24
"Animals," says this author, "seek in love usually their own kind, within the boundaries of
their specie, but sometimes, under the pressure of strong sexual feelings, mate with
animals of other species, especially those close to them zoologically. In this respect, males ,
in general, are less hesitant in choice than females. Up to what zoological extent the
possibility of such connections extends, is still unknown, but observations prove that
mating sometimes occurs between very distant species. " The author cites a number of
cases, he said, quite reliable, observed by famous naturalists, when such distant species as a
bull and a horse, a dog and a pig, a dog and a goose, a rabbit and a chicken, a duck and a
cock, a cat and a rat, a parrot and a canary - mate. And that the crown of creation itself, the
man, did not avoid such unnatural intercourse, is proved by the prohibition imposed on
him in the Bible. The connections between very remote species remain, of course, in most
cases fruitless, but the range of the species does not always serve as an obstacle to the
fertility of the offspring. Thus, goats and sheep are much further separated from each other
in a system of zoological relationship than a horse and a donkey, and yet from a
comparison of the full fecundity of bastards from the first, with infertility of offspring in the
latter, one can conclude that the degree of proximity between species, cannot serve as a
measure of the fertility of hybrids . In order to predict whether the offspring of the two
known species is prolific or not, we have no scientific data and can only obtain them
through direct experience, since the laws of crossing are not exactly known. The only thing
that can be said about crossing is that hybridism rarely transcends the boundaries between
genera.
Approximately the same opinion was expressed by Darwin: "Species," he wrote, "relating to
distinct genera(genus), rarely cross, but belonging to different families, never interbreed."
However, this parallelism is far from complete, because a lot of closely related species do
not unite with each other, or are combined with great difficulties, but other species, sharply
distinct from each other, cross very easily. This difficulty does not at all depend on the
natural difference in the composition, but, apparently, exclusively on the "sexual
composition" of the crossed species».28

With another simple and logical conclusion, supplements the above, Paul Broca, the founder of
the French anthropological school:

"Mankind clearly represents one kind; but if it were one species, it would be the only
exception in the whole creation. Human races differ among themselves more than some
species of animals, allotted in same genera by all naturalists. Being transferred to a
different climate and other living conditions, these races are opposed to any kind of
change."

As can be seen and understood from the above citations, the fact that people classified animals

28
“Новая теория происхождения человека и его вырождения¨ - Мошков В.А. , 1907

25
according to their supposedly correct opinion into groups, classes, families, etc. does not mean
that science has already comprehended everything and knows everything, and that no
exception is possible. Nature, from time to time, reveals its secrets to us, and as it almost
always turns out, our current view, very often should change to accept and recognize, a new,
altered picture of the universe, where everything is not always as we had it written about it in
books. Although much has been accomplished by science, it is still far from having the absolute
truth and knowledge of all aspects of life and the universe. So let's give a chance to other
explanations and theories to say their own, and we, in the meantime, will listen and will draw
our conclusions.

Today, the term race - sometimes causes unrest, but, for some reason those who worry, do
not pay attention to the fact, what those definitions of race and specie, mean. According to the
Britannica encyclopedia:

"Species, in biology, classification comprising related organisms that share common

characteristics and are capable of interbreeding ".

Here is what it says about the definition of race:

"Race, the idea that the human species is divided into distinct groups on the basis of inherited
physical and behavioral differences. Genetic studies in the late 20th century refuted the
existence of biogenetically distinct races, and scholars now argue that “races” are cultural
interventions reflecting specific attitudes and beliefs that were imposed on different populations
in the wake of western European conquests beginning in the 15th century".

We remind that today there are dozens, if not hundreds, of works in the fields of genetics,
medicine, and many more, that prove the biological foundations, under the morphological,
physiological and behavioral varieties of observed signs, the basis of which are the inherited
genes. Only in the last twenty years dozens of works of geneticists have come out, confirming
that humanity is a hybrid phenomenon, and that the manifested signs, both morphological and
mental, have a genetic basis, that is, they are inherited.

If we refer to the Sapiens and the Neanderthal man as two different species of the Homo
genus, then what do we name the hybrid between them? Will we search for a new way to
name him, will we come up with a new word? Most anthropologists already use the term -
anatomical modern human, briefly - AMH. But some may say that there is a difference too big
between the AMH from Patagonia, or say Polynesia, and the anatomical modern man from
Norway. And what about the 300,000-year-old AMH from Morocco and a contemporary AMH
from Senegal? Where exactly do we draw the line? The difference is, how you wouldn´t put it,
a great one. Since the variety of diverse human forms is very dissimilar both in morphology and
in physiology, we will limit to the unclear term "anatomical modern human", which is
unpractical. So far we leave behind this concept, that the AMH is any example of a hybrid of
Sapiens with different species, in which traits of both sapiens and other species are observed.

26
 Anthropologists of past generations, have long decided on the question of how to evaluate the
difference between people who show distinctive features. And this question stands, at least,
with the emergence of anthropology as a science. At the end of the nineteenth century, the
early twentieth century, I.E. Deniker, put an end to this discussion, suggesting the use of
somatic signs, as the main criterion of classifications of people and determination of a particular
race.

Here is what Deniker himself said about somatic signs29:

"These units serve as theoretical types, consisting of a set of physical attributes,

combined with each other in a certain way".

We will not dwell on exactly which classification system should be used, since all existing
systems have an inert feature of rigid grouping, and while are more or less applicable to large
groups of people, they cause confusion in individual and unique cases. For this reason,
everyone can decide for themselves which version of grouping to follow or not. Here the
essence is important, and the point is that humanity is a hybrid between different
individuals of the same genus.

Since the most researched individual after Sapiens is the Neanderthal, we´ll make use of this
to identify the present situation on the classification of races, sub-races, and other issues, such
as the formation of anthropological types, the fixing of signs, etc.

To this day, it's no longer a question or a secret, but a public fact, that modern man is the heir
for the most part, of the Sapiens' DNA, and the DNA of the archanthropus, in our example
typified by the Neanderthal man. Scientists around the world busy in this area, work very hard
on the question of when the first meeting with the crossing of DNA between the two of them
took place. At first, this figure was set at 50 thousand years, then 100, and today it has already
reached 300 thousand years ago. 30 However, we are not interested in the concrete figure as
much as in the very fact that it happened. And that's why.

Firstly, any morphological feature has a genetic basis and is transmitted strictly by inheritance.
That's why "an acorn will always grow into an oak, and not a fig tree."

29
Somatological signs – morphological-physical features in structure and form of the body.
30
Or even 300.000 by “The age of the hominin fossils from Jebel Irhoud, Morocco” – Daniel Richter, 2017. “ Here
we report the ages, determined by thermo luminescence dating, of fire-heated flint artifacts obtained from new
excavations at the Middle Stone Age site of Jebel Irhoud, Morocco, which are directly associated with newly
discovered remains of H. sapiens. A weighted average age places these Middle Stone Age artifacts and fossils at
315 ± 34 thousand years ago. ” Yes, today this site, is classified as a Sapiens site, but interesting is the fact that
when it was discovered, it was concluded, that some of the remains found there, belong to the Neanderthals, since
the skulls were typical samples of Neanderthal characters. Later, they "renamed" them into the Sapiens, since they
represented a combination of features of the entire skeleton almost indistinguishable from "modern man."

27
 According to the laws of inheritance of the genes, observed by Gregory Mendel, by having two
parents with different characteristics, their descendants, will inherit these signs in unequal
measure, in different ways. Someone will look more like one parent, someone more alike
another, in different proportions.

In our case, if we talk about purely morphological signs, some of us looks more like the
sapiens, and some more alike the Neanderthal man, or the Erectus man.

And even with the fact that all mankind inherited for the most part the DNA of the sapiens,
even that smaller fraction of DNA inherited from the archanthropes, is enough to make it
manifest partly as expressed signs of the morphology of the archanthropus.

And this allows, with having a sufficient number of observed features in different variants of the
heirs, to reveal the original type of each parent. In order to obtain a general idea of the
belonging of a single trait to a given individual, the method is very simple. The feature most
encountered in one subspecie/specie, is in most cases, a characteristic trait of it. For example,
most Neanderthals - have a steeply, sloping back forehead. Most modern people have a slightly
sloping forehead. And which kind of forehead did originally the Sapiens had, before crossing?

It is interesting, in this case, to mention and quote one of the founders of the Russian
Anthropological school - Bogdanov A.P., concerning the methodology in the study of racial
traits.

"Studying a pug or a poodle, interesting for a zoologist are not random variations of it,
caused by some or other external conditions, but a more permanent combination of
features that alone give him the opportunity to make himself an idea of what a pug or
poodle is, as representatives of natural groups or races. He knows that in genetic theories
the signs are not calculated, but weighted according to their significance, they are
classified not by their number, but by their clarity of manifestations, by the
expression of it. In this case, what for the zoologist is important to observe in each
individual, is an indication of the influence of the race. The same we have in the mixed
tribes of man, the same difficulties, we meet the same goals when studying their
anthropological properties. "

So, if we want to find out the characteristic sign of sapiens, we should look for a direction in
the medium-statistical form, and among the unusual forms of it - a specific
manifestation of the morphological trait. The average statistical form - shows the
common trend, or a combination of all types of characteristics in some medium form. The most
distinctive-extreme forms - can be a good indicator of the morphology of the original sign.

It will be convenient to show mechanism working with a concrete example. It should be noted
that in this case, small and large letters used - are not an indicator of the dominant and

28
recessive nature of the characteristics, but are used for the sake of convenience and simplicity.
Also, it is necessary to note that the signs themselves are neither dominant, nor recessive. They
can be such only with respect to another set of characteristics pretending to the same place.
Here you can see all sorts of combinations of genes, in the form of manifested signs. And so,
let's see how it looks on the example of two somatological, i.e. morphological signs - the lips of
the Sapiens and the Neanderthal man.

In modern Europeans, there are, although rare, some people with strongly protruding brow
ridges and sloping foreheads. And those who have sloping foreheads, almost always have to
some extent protruding superciliary arches31. And if this is the manifestation of the
characteristic features of the Neanderthal man, we can go the same way, and look for the same
extraordinary manifestations in order to find out what was original form of the forehead of the
Sapiens. And in the meantime, among the Europeans, there are also, not too often, people with
straight foreheads and without any supraorbital ridges. There are of course also people with
straight foreheads and prominent supraorbital ridges. But since the DNA of Europeans consists
of the DNA of the sapiens and the DNA of the Neanderthal man, and the sloping forehead and
the superciliary arcs are found in 99% of the fossil Neanderthals, there remains the
incomprehensible origin of the direct forehead with the absence of superciliary arches. And
meanwhile, the average statistical European is just something averaged between these two
signs. Let us consider this phenomenon, in more detail.

31
Superciliary arches, are synonymous with supraorbital ridge, and brow ridge.

29
As you can see, and as one would expect, 75% of the possible combinations have a sloping
forehead to a different degree - like most modern Europeans. And only 25% have a straight
forehead, of which 18.25% have slightly or strongly protruding brow ridges. Remain only
6.25% in which the straight forehead without the brow ridge, is developed. And, if to these two
signs, add one more? Say, the presence or absence of the occipital bun. Since we know that
this attribute is also inherited by modern people from the Neanderthal man, in which this sign is
almost always present in a strong manifestation, in how many of 6.25% will there be no
occipital bun? The percentage will decrease again. That's why it is so difficult to identify the

30
initial signs without having a certain amount of initial data. But in this case, we were able to
identify the correct methodology for this situation, and determine the answer to the question of
interest.

So we revealed a characteristic sign of sapiens - a straight forehead without supraorbital ridge.

Since we already have an initial tool for revealing the characteristics of one species A, by
comparing the characteristics of another species B with the common characteristics of hybrid C
(which has AB traits), thus attributing the remaining attributes to type A, following this pattern,
we can move on. However, it is worth bearing in mind that such a method has its chance of
error, since the revealed free sign may turn out to be a sign of another species that left its
imprint in the genetic code of the hybrid. In this case, it remains to make a control check. This
feature is taken, and tested in representatives of modern or archaic races with other mixes in
which this feature is not commonly observed. If the feature we have identified really belongs to
species A, then it will also appear in the sapiens hybrids with other species, rather than in the
one that we examined.

In a concrete example, it looks like this.

Suppose we do not know if the straight and high forehead, is an original sign of Sapiens. But
the Neanderthal, with whom we most often compare the signs, most of all shows a sloping low
forehead. In order to determine whether those cases, that are observed in Neanderthal and
Sapiens hybrids, in who the forehead is straight and higher than others, actually show the
predominant feature inherent from Sapiens, let us take and consider the same features - the
height and angle of the forehead slope - observed in representatives of the Mongoloid race.
Let’s take, as an example, the Yakuts.

31
Even in cases where the forehead is covered with ornaments, it is not difficult to see, by the
proportions, that the Yakuts are not famous for their tall and straight foreheads, but have on
average a low, slightly sloping forehead. In cases where the structure of the skull and the
features of the face they approach the Europeans, a more straight and wide forehead is
observed, compared to the average Yakut type. And so, if not completely, then at least it is very
likely, that the straight forehead, really, is the original feature inherited from Sapiens. And so,
by means of a control comparison of signs, it is possible to identify the origin of the signs, and
also whose genes are responsible for it.

32
Let's look at one phenomenon that still astounds people from all over the world with its
diversity. Namely, the morphology of the nose.

Since this organ has a very complex structure, composed of many parts, we'll first consider two
features, both observable from the profile. The first sign is the shape of the nose line along its
length, the second, is the depth of the nasion, that point below the glabella, with respect to the
forehead line, or with respect to the glabella itself.

In this example, it can be seen that this type of nose has a slightly concave shape along its
length. The depth of the nasion relative to the forehead is significant, or pronounced.

Above, we can observe the most common types of noses among Europeans. Let's take in
consideration, two of the most popular - Roman and Greek. They both differ in both the first
and the second sign.

33
In order to better understand the nature of the morphology of the nose in europeans, in this
case, in the example of the Roman and Greek nose, we need to turn to the method of
comparing the characteristics.

34
32

32
Reconstruction photos are taken from the website: http://www.antropogenez.ru/reconstructions/

35
 33

In all Neanderthals the depth of the nasion is strongly pronounced,

but the noses are slightly convex in shape, except for the second
example. So, how to explain the hump on the nose of the so-called
Roman type? It turns out, in no way, if we assume that the shape of
the nose, is a sign encoded by one gene, or one site of one gene.
However, it is very likely that this is not the case, and the
morphology of the nose is determined by quite a lot of DNA code
sections, and not just one. This is, because, speaking purely from the perspective of anatomy,
the nose is made of many parts, from different types of tissue. And since we already know

33
This picture is taken from the website: https://australianmuseum.net.au/image/neanderthal-head-
reconstruction-side-view

36
something about the nature of the matrix of electrodynamic fields, it is quite reasonable to
assume, that the cells made from different tissues, will have different electromagnetic
potentials, and, therefore, they will be encoded by many different, if not genes, then at least
parts or sectors of the genes. What does this give us? Everything is extremely simple. If several
sections of the gene are involved in the coding of the construction of the nose, it is very likely
that some fragments from the Sapiens code and the Neanderthal code, have intermingled
between themselves. The same thing happened at the level of the matrixes of L-fields, i.e. one
matrix smoothly flowed into the other, in the most harmonious way available, and so did the
other.

The Roman nose is very likely not a separate initial sign in itself, but is a kind of combination of
two different original types. In other words, the so-called Roman nose is a hybrid of two
types of nose, the tissues and matrixes of which are connected in a hump.

This is one reason why, the second example was chosen precisely the Greek nose, because, at
least according to the depth of the nasion, they are the opposite. I.e., on the basis of the depth
of the nasion, these two types of nose are extreme manifestations of the trait, and
consequently very likely, and two original features of species, or at least - very ancient
subtypes.

Here, the section of the matrix responsible for the nasion, is dictated by the section of the DNA
code of the Neanderthal-Heidelberg man, which, to the hump of the nose, flows into the area
encoded by the Sapiens-Greek(Hellenic) morphology.

37
How does it all work? There are many options, depending on what level we are looking at. And
for the level of genes and the DNA sequence there is an explanation, and for the interaction of
matrixes of L-fields there is an explanation, and so on. The main thing now is to understand not
how it works in detail, but in a general way. And generally, it works this way.

 And so, we have two matrixes(sequences) A and B.

 They touch and intermingle.

 This can happen relatively one point, or many, at the same time.

In our below-mentioned variant, two matrixes, those of Sapiens and Neanderthal-

Heidelbergensis, join at one point at the nasal bone,resulting in the so-called Roman nose. This
new qualitative connection, due to the consolidation of the sequence in the most
harmonious(stable) way, balancing the differential gradient between them, often leads to the
formation of a new qualitative feature, that retains its properties, and is inherited.
For example, the nasal hump is smoothed out, and the earlier sharp rupture of two straight
lines, turns into a smoothed arc.

38
39
Why, how long it takes, and on what factors depends the formation of a new qualitative
attribute from two primary ones, we are not particularly interested at the moment. The
important thing is that it happens. The state of fixation of the trait is an indicator of the stability
of this combination in the DNA code sequence, if we translate it in terms of genetics.

In this situation, we simply observe what happens.

Meanwhile, a very observant reader, may have noticed, some inconsistency in the conclusions
drawn. How does this happen, on the one hand, that the attributes are coded and inherited
genetically, and that in the original species, there can be no variation in the manifestation of
features, and on the other hand, in the reconstruction of the Neanderthal skulls cited above,
there is a difference in the form of the nose?

40
For comparison, front view.

“- No,” others can object, “the second reconstruction is a teenager who has not yet grown a
nose!” Let's be straightforward - Traits manifest themselves proportionally, that is, firstly
doesn´t grow one leg, and then another, but both legs grow at the same time. This means,
that if this neanderthal teenager would have had a nose characteristic of his species, he should
have had it already manifested at that stage, both in length and width. Of course, someone
may object, ostensibly, this is a single case of the manifestation of some genetic abnormality.

41
And this statement would have had its place, had it not been for other cases of the same
nature, observed, as in other reconstructions of DIFFERENT skulls, as in works made by
DIFFERENT masters of reconstruction.

Now, among anthropologists and just fans of anthropology, it's no secret that the Heidelberg
man is considered the ancestor of the Neanderthal man. I.e., its more "ancient variant". Here is
one such reconstruction.

34
Some kind of inconsistency. An ancient Heidelberg ancestor has a smaller and thinner nose,
and the supposedly more progressive Neanderthal heir’s nose, is broad and mushy. There is no
consecutiveness here.

34
Photographs taken from : http://antropogenez.ru/reconstructions/
Location: Broken-Hill
Skull: Broken-Hill 1
Dating: 130-300 thousand years BCE.
Author: M.M. Gerasimov

42
Well, yes, maybe the reenactor was mistaken? Here is the reconstruction of another master, the
same skull.

35

The same "inconsistency" of signs that the teenager "Le Moustier", the age of 40 thousand
years. A gap between the two, about 100 thousand years, and thousands of kilometers. And, is
easy to observe that in the rest of the Neanderthal-Heidelberg skull reconstructions, a wide
nose - is ALMOST a strict regularity. But then, it turns out, this trait of a narrow nose, is
nothing more than a manifestation of an acquired trait through crossing? An unusual
assumption, but let us recall a few facts.

 Paleoanthropologists many times cannot group discovered bones and skulls to one
specie, because those fossils represent borderline traits, in such way falling between
archaic hominids and “anthropologically modern humans”
 “Anatomically modern humans” already are hybrids between Sapiens and Neanderthals,
for the least. In between, some Neanderthal fossil skulls are almost identical to some
modern day people.
 Neanderthals, and some representatives of Heidelberg man (european erectus type),
manifest at local or smaller scale, some traits inconsistent with their general,
typical(specie) morphology

35
Photographs taken from : http://www.daynes.com/en/hominids-reconstructions/homo-rodhesiensis-kabwe-
broken-hill-16.html

43
  The occipital bun, taken today as a characteristic archaic hominid trait, also is found in
modern humans. But in distinction to modern humans, most archanthropes are
dolichocranial. From where does brachycrany come from?

Here is what said about this phenomenon, the russian anthropologist, Stanislav V.
Drobyshevski36:

"… The new stage in understanding the place of Neanderthals in human evolution came at
the very end of the XX century, when a piece of mitochondrial DNA of a Neanderthal from
Düsseldorf was deciphered. The first interpretations of the significant differences between
the Neanderthal man and modern man, made it possible to assert, that these differences far
exceed the intergroup human variability, and, are likely to speak about the species level of
differences, between Neanderthals and Sapiens, about the divergence of their lines in
antiquity - about 600 thousand years ago - without further mixing (according to the latest
calculations, the time of line divergence - about 500 thousand years ago). Numerous
subsequent transcripts of mtDNA from different Neanderthal individuals, seem to fully
confirm this conclusion, especially, since the analyses were conducted almost exclusively
by one group of researchers. However, the latest works of 2010 on deciphering the nuclear
DNA of Neanderthals, and comparing it with different variants of the genome of modern
man, showed that modern Negroids do not have a Neanderthal admixture, whereas for
non-Negroids it can be from 1 to 4%, according to the latest clarifications, 2.5 %. The
genetically based foundation of the "African Eva Theory", gave a crack that expanded even
more, when it turned out that some modern Melanesians, might also have 4.8% of non-
Neanderthal, so-called "Denisovan" genes, whose closest counterparts, were found in the
remains of the Middle Paleolithic Denisova cave, in the Altai. These data were widely
advertised as sensational, but how much they are actually unexpected?

Hybrid origin, based on a mosaic of Neanderthal-Sapient features can be assumed (and has
long been assumed), for some early and many later paleanthropines. Candidates for the
first-generation mestizo are Es-Skhul skeletons (100-135 thousand ya37) and Kafzeh (90-
99 thousand ya), Amud I (55,000 ya), thigh bone of Romankovo (no dating), the lower jaw
and thigh bone of Zafarraya (27-33,4 thousand ya), the skull of a Pech de l'Azé I (41-51
thousand years ago), the skeleton Saint-Cesaire 1 (36 thousand ya), fragments from the G
layer of the Vindija cave (G1 - 28-33 thousand ya, G3 - 41-42 thousand ya).

36
Speech of Stanislav Drobyshevski on the second meeting of the club ANTROPOGENEZ.RU, which took place 26
february 2011 at State Darwin museum.
http://antropogenez.ru/article/239/
37
ya – years ago

44
For all these findings, a combination of Neanderthal and Sapient features is typical,
often in a rather contradictory version. In addition, a pronounced asymmetry of the
skull and face, as well as the presence of numerous intercalary ossicles in the joints
of the vault, according to the studies of Yu.D. Benevolenskaya, are markers of a
hybrid origin. An obvious asymmetry is found on the skulls of Kafzeh 9, Pech de l'Azé I, La
Kina 5 and 18, Le Moustier I ...
In the distribution of Sapient characteristics among the Neanderthals, there is one
extremely important pattern, which is often undeservedly underestimated: the
"percentage of sapientity" increases dramatically in Neanderthals with datings less
than 40,000 years ago, but and before that, there are individuals who show an
obvious slant in the sapient side. Around that date, the "classical neanderthal" version,
has suddenly and sharply been "sapienised", with the advent of Sapiens in Europe, but the
trend to this appeared even at a time when the Sapiens were only on its doorstep. This
allows us to talk about a possible genetic drift, which did not cease all the time of the
existence of the Neanderthal species. Given the small number of Neanderthals at all
times, this drift could be not so weak, as one might think. One can, of course, consider the
individual deviation, in one direction or another, as a mere manifestation of population
variability, but it is strange that the "sapient" bias sharply increases in the very latest
Neanderthals. It is extremely doubtful, that they suddenly began to evolve by themselves,
in the sapiential direction, precisely during the presence around of the Cro-Magnon people.
Also, it's worth noting that genetics tend to emphasize the sharp differences of
Neanderthals from Sapiens, but the Neanderthal genome is deciphered on the basis
of the latest finds, which, strictly speaking, cannot be considered samples of the
"classical" type».

All this leads to one curious thought: is it not by chance, that the Neanderthals, both early and
late, are hybrids of two, or more species? And the same Heidelberg man, is only just an earlier
version of this hybridization? A strong argument, in favor of such a hypothesis, is the diversity
of the manifested signs among both Heidelberg and Neanderthal people. Here are a few
pictures of the reconstruction of the Neanderthal man, next to photos of modern people.

45
 38

38
Photographs taken from: http://www.kenniskennis.com/site/sculptures/

46
47
 39

Let's go even further, but what about the Asian erectus? In the next photograph, the age of the
skull on which the reconstruction was carried out, is around one million years.

39
Russian boxer and и Heidelberg man(or homo rhodesiesis)(Broken Hill 1) 130-300 thousand years before prior.

48
Next, comes homo ergaster, the so-called relative of the erectus, and next to it, modern people.
The upper picture - two Papuans, the lower one - two aborigines from the Tasmanian Island. It
is quite obvious, that the main difference between them all, is only slightly different proportions
of inherited sapiens, and archanthropine genes. But, the common morphology, stays the same.

49
From this point of view, remain fully understandable, the attempts of explanation, and the
arguments, brought up by the official school of anthropology - that humanity has a common
root. And this is, as strange as it might seem - the truth. Only they interpreted everything a
little from the other side.

This root, or link, is Homo Sapiens. And the apparent line of evolution is nothing more than
a gradual increase in the amount of sapien genes, in comparison with the genes of
archanthropines, due to crossing between them, and later, there has been interbreeding and
between different hybrid subspecies. What follows from this? At least, that the Neanderthal
man, is not a separate specie in itself, but a hybrid subspecies, that has arisen as a

50
result of crossing of at least two species - erectus and sapiens, or maybe some else. Yes,
the Neanderthal man has fixed a certain combination in the DNA sequence, by which, the
majority of Neanderthals are similar to each other, and do not differ a lot in their variations, i.e.
they do not deviate too much, from their common phenotype. But that same thing is happening
today with the so-called anthropological types. Take, for example, the same Dinaric type. This is
a medium-southern European type, of medium-high height, with a short head and flat occiput,
a sloping forehead, and a prominent, often eagle or Roman nose. There are also
representatives of the Dinaric type with a straight nose, but even in these cases, all other signs
are more or less, characteristic, and retain a common pattern of the type. Thus, representatives
of the Dinaric type - are similar to each other morphologically, but have a certain degree of
variation of these, or other characteristics, as a consequence of the fact, that they are hybrids.

40

So, the variation in this case, is also due to different admixtures of other phenotypes, or
recombination of some genes during conception, the cause of such being, not just the habitat,
in the person of meteorological and other conditions. It is plain obvious, the dinaric type, has a
similar pattern of variability, the same degree of deviation, as the Neanderthal type. This
phenomenon, is a characteristic of hybrids or sub-species, but not of representatives
of purebred, or homozygous specie.

And the reason why sometimes paleoanthropologists cannot accurately relate a fossil
archanthrope to one specific group is very simple. In the distant past, as in the present, people
standing at the same stage, and in similar spheres of development and habitat, under certain
conditions, could easily interbreed. This occurrence, could be the cause, of why there is still no

40
“Races of Europe” – Carleton Stevens Coon, plate №39- Dinaric type

51
clarity in the taxonomy, or morphology of one or another archaic fossil individual. In other
words, it is difficult, to define somatic characteristics (traits) for one species, when you collide
with a different mix in most diverse variations, and do not have an idea of exactly how the
original type of this species or at least the so-called reference type should look like. That's why
it's hard to say where, for example, the traits of a Heidelberg man end and the features of an
early Neanderthal begin.

Still sounds implausible? Let’s take a look at a few graphs.41

Let's recall the average values, of the volume of the brain, for primates and various species of
the genus Homo, in cc or cm3:

Primates

Orangutan 275–500 cm3

Chimpanzees: 275–500 cm3

Gorillas: 340–752 cm3

Hominids

41
«Evolution of Hominin Brain Size» - Alan R. Rogers, 2011.

52
Australopithecus afarensis: 445.8 cm3

Homo Habilis: 610.3 cm3

Homo Erectus: 1,092.9 cm3

Homo Erectus (asian): 1,155.8 cm3

Heidelberg man: 1,262.8 cm3

Neanderthal man: 1,427.2 cm3

Homo Sapiens: 1,496.5 cm3 (some manifest more than 2,000 см3)

As can be seen from the graph, australopithecus, and other ancient fossil hominids, up to
1.8 million years old, differed little from today's chimpanzees or orangutans, by volume of
the skull.

Something happened 1.8 million years ago, and as out of the sky, appears the so-called
Erectus, in the face of the European, Asian, and African version of it, somewhat
morphologically different from each other, but still, since the obvious morphological
boundaries were not set, the men of science identified them all, as one specie. Of course,
even before this mark, slightly different variations of Australopithecines were identified, but
they all had more or less the same structure and volume of the brain. And their overall
morphology, was almost identical. But something happened, about two million years ago,
and Homo Erectus appeared, who retained many signs and morphological features of
Australopithecus, but also had other such signs, that weren't ever met before. One of the
most outstanding signs of such, is the brain volume, which is twice as large in Erectus, than
in its supposed ancestors.

As it seems, in the course of several thousand years, the australopithecus grew a brain
twice as big, and partially changed its morphology, sometimes exhibiting the original
features of Australopithecus, and sometimes - of something unknown until then.

Since then, and to the mark of 100-200 thousand years, there have been no sharp changes,
except for small jumps in the volume of the cranium, fluctuating between 800-1200 cubic
centimeters. It must also be emphasized that during all this time, the remaining hominids
did not disappear at once, but existed as well as many thousands, and maybe even millions
of years before. For example, Homo Florensiensis, died out, in a more or less, pure
specimen, relatively recently.

53
Among the first spots, where jumps noted in the graph are observed, periods of rapid growth of
the cranium, are associated with the appearance of the Neanderthal man, and other fossil
hominids, that differ in some ways from him, are called "anatomically modern humans", shortly
AMH. It is worthwhile to emphasize that this particular feature is also characterized by the
appearance, again "as from nowhere," of the first Sapiens fossils, with a very small fraction of
archanthropine admixture. Here is one such example.

In 1958, farm workers digging in a cave in

southern China's Liujiang County discovered
several human bones including a skull. Relying
on its resemblance to securely dated human
fossils in Japan, scientists assigned this Homo
sapiens skull an age of 20,000 to 30,000 years.
The Liujiang finds may be much older than
that, according to a report in the December
“Journal of Human Evolution”. The fossils
probably came from sediment dating to
111,000 to 139,000 years ago, says a team led
by geologist Guanjun Shea of Nanjing (China)
Normal University. He and his co-workers add
that it's still possible that the Liujiang
discoveries came either from a cave deposit
dating from around 68,000 years ago or from

54
one dating to more than 153,000 years ago.42

43

It is clear that new signs, like new species, should appear from somewhere, and they are not
the result of random mutations provoked by the habitat, but are directly inherited. For those
who still doubt this, let them open up the materials on biology, and they will be able to find a
lot of examples among all families, that have not changed significantly over the last millions or
even hundreds of millions of years, although their habitat has undoubtedly undergone changes,
at least from the part of large-scale cataclysms of the Earth, not to mention climatic jumps,
when the earth was heated up, or it was cooled down.

On our topic, it is enough to look again at the above pictures, about the comparison of striking
proximity in the general morphology of fossil hominids and modern people. Morphological
proximity, which, on such a scale, should not be, according to the generally accepted theory of
evolution. And the main arguments, of those who said that the Liujiang man, cannot be more
than 60-70 thousand years old, it was that it did not fit in at that time with the generally
accepted postulate of the origin of man from Africa.

From all this, it will be useful to emphasize a few things.

• Before the date of 1,8-2,0 million years, between humanlike apes and the so called
archaic hominids, there did not exist much difference.

42
The photo and the text is taken from: http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/liujiang-skull.php
43
Left – Reconstruction of Liujang Man, right – anthropological composite of eastern cro-magnon type “Neo-
Danubian” (This picture is taken from http://humanphenotypes.net/).

55
• Approximately 1,8 million years ago, rises a new specie, with its characteristic features,
never seen earlier. Brain size from 800 to 1200 cm3, this hominid was named Homo
Erectus.
• From that date, and up until 300-100 thousand years ago, there are no substantial
changes, only distinct combinations of existing features in fossil hominids.
• Exactly the jump in growth of the brain size, with the age of 300-100 thousand years
ago, is connected with the emergence of “anatomically modern human”, which is a hybrid
between Sapiens and distinct types of archanthropines. AMH had predominantly the genes
of Sapiens, in distinction to early hominids, whose genes where mostly inherited from their
archaic ancestors.

56
 Who is Erectus?

Is it possible then, to reveal the original type of erectus? It's difficult - but possible. For this, it
will be necessary not only to study different representatives of fossil hominids, but also to
study, even more so, the now existing variations in anthropological types of modern people.

Since it is not particularly secret for us the fact that people differ by a huge number of signs, all
we need to do, is draw a portrait of the characteristics that are specific to the species of interest
to us, and at the same time to other species. Why is that? Because, sometimes it is more easy
to observe the sign, inherent to specie A, in the population of specie B, as in the case of the
Yakuts. Let us clarify this again. To make it clear, let's take as an example, all the
representatives, of most pronounced Mongoloid types, that is, not only the Yakuts, but also the
Chinese, etc.

Europeans have a huge number of different forms of the forehead, of which the most common
is a slightly sloping forehead, of medium height.

In the Chinese, almost always the forehead is sloping and low, but, in some cases, as it is in
those representatives of this population, that are closest to the archaic specie, one or two signs
of the another specie(non mongoloid) can be observed. Or, it can be observed in a specimen,
that has preserved the general phenotypic traits of the local population, while has adopted the
attributes of interest to us, from the Sapiens. In this case, this representative, will be closer to
the original Sapiens, than its average representative.

We just need to look among the representatives of this population, until this manifested sign is
a forehead. We are not particularly interested in how it will look, but it is clear to us that this
sign will be very different from the general morphology of the skull of this type. In other words,
it will literally jump in the eyes. This method is very good and simple, but we will supplement it
with another method, so to speak, for reliability.

57
 Quite tall and straight forehead, uncharacteristic for the population of China. And the
forehead, is the place where the neo-cortex is enclosed. The neo-cortex, is the part of the brain
through which we can think, realize ourselves, and perceive the world with feelings. It is the
size and development of neo-cortex, that is the factor that most distinguishes Sapiens from
other representatives of the genus Homo.

44
Samuel Thomas von Sömmerring wrote:

"One must assume that nature forms cranial bones so that they can adapt to the brain,
but not vice versa".

From the work of Harold Burr, about the experience with frogs and salamanders:

“ We explored the fields of a frog's eggs-as mentioned in the first chapter-not only to
satisfy ourselves that something so small and relatively simple possessed a field but also to
find support for our theory that the field controls the growth and development of the form.
Using micro-pipettes filled with salt solution and connected to the voltmeter we found
different voltage gradients across different axes of the eggs. We marked the axis of the
largest voltage gradient with spots of Nile blue sulphate and later found, as the eggs
developed, that the frog's nervous system always grew along the axis with the highest
voltage gradient. This was an indication that the field is primary-the matrix that shapes
the living form.”

44
Samuel Thomas von Sömmerring - was a German physician, anatomist, anthropologist, paleontologist and
inventor.

58
 “ We started with numerous experiments on the developing embryos of salamanders,
because an analysis of the embryology of the nervous system promised data to support our
Field Theory. In the first place, as the embryo is an aquatic animal, it was necessary to
determine whether or not there were any significant electro-metrics of the embryo.
Potential measurements were made, therefore, in the embryo from a point in the cephalic
region, and another in the caudal region. These were studied over periods of time and
showed characteristic changes with the growth and differentiating of the embryo itself. It
soon became clear that there is an electro-metric correlate of the longitudinal axis of the
salamander nervous system. There is also a bilateral symmetry between the right side and
the left side of the axis, as might be expected from everything else we know about the
developing organism…

As a distinguished friend of mine once said, 'The growth and development of an embryo
would seem to be the result of the fact that some kind of a factor sits on the embryo
during its entire development and gives direction to it' From the evidence at hand, up to
date, it would seem fairly obvious that the one constant factor in growth and
development - which include not only the increase in the numbers of cells, but also their
differentiation-is the field of the organism.” 45

About that in different races and types, the crisscrossing (joining) of the cranial bones differ,
and the fact that in some, the anterior, frontal bones grow together first, while in others the
occipital parts grow together first - a lot of material is known to this day on this topic. In a
nutshell, according to statistics, in europeans - who, on average, have a large number of genes
inherited from Sapiens, frontal lobes grow together in some cases by the age of 40, and in the
people from equatorial Africa, averagely, by age 25, they are already formed.

This indicates, that in Europeans, frontal lobes of the brain continue to develop
longer, and consequently, the neocortex grows bigger, than the neocortex in equatorial African
populations, averagely. This is clearly shown by the medium size of the volume of the brain
among different races, or populations. It is for this reason, that those who inherited the
genes of the developed Sapiens' neocortex, will have straight foreheads, because
the brain determines the shape of the skull, and not vice versa. This brain tells the
bones:

"- Wait guys, no need to fuse, not all neurons have grown yet!"

As can be seen, by quite simple observation, that the sign (straight forehead),
uncharacteristic for a given type or population (Chinese), tells directly of a present
admixture of another type (sapiens or Caucasoids), through its extreme or partially extreme

45
“Blueprint for immortality – Electric Patterns of Life” – Harold S. Burr, p. 61, 63-64.

59
manifestation (in our example, an outstanding forehead Jack Ma, the Chinese in the photo
above). This is also confirmed by Harold S. Burr's concept, of L-fields in living organisms. Thus,
it was revealed and by control way, that a straight and high forehead, is a
characteristic sign of Sapiens. By similar observation and calculations, it is possible to
observe other expressions of the forehead morphology in a given population, and to reveal the
most sharply differing forms, from the average forehead shapes, comparing the one revealed,
with the form of the forehead characteristic of the European.

In a nutshell, in the Chinese, generally, we observe:

"A" features (Asian erectus, or Sinanthropus), and "B" features (sapiens).

In the statistically average Chinese, the forehead will be somewhere between A and B, with a
general predominance of one form in some cases, and of another in other cases. We are not
interested in average-medium forms at this stage. Since we admit, that we do not have an idea
of how exactly should this form A look, we take as a model, the B form (straight and high
forehead), and look among the Chinese for a form of forehead morphology, which differs
sharply from the shape of B. Exactly this way, the totality of forehead features (excluding
average forms), most distinct from form B, will by default be attributed to A.

In this case, we will search precisely among the most pronounced representatives of the
Mongoloid race, because, it will exclude the error of grouping some attribute belonging to
another specie or type, to the original Mongoloid type. Of course, even so, it is possible for an
error to occur, but even if we make a mistake in one example, sooner or later, there will arise a
succession discrepancy with other representatives of the prominently expressed Mongoloid
type, from which it will be clear that the derived trait is not characteristic for either this type of
erectus or for that of sapiens. Which will require us to find out if this unattributed trait is a
combined one, or one belonging to a third type envolved in the admixture of the studied
population.

60
61
62
And so, the low and small, sloping back forehead, with moderate superciliary arches, is most
likely a characteristic sign of type A, or of the original Mongoloid type.

That's it, in this way, it is possible to restore a morphological portrait of a type or species,
meaning that any sign (trait), is genetically determined and transmitted by inheritance. Of
course, in isolated and rare cases, some signs may not appear, due to the suppression of genes
belonging to another type or phenotype, which show greater potential. But in this case it is
possible to find its manifestation by studying other crossbreeds, in the formation of which this
type participated. In other words, if it is difficult to identify a sign among the Chinese, you can
study Buryats, Yakuts or Koreans.

Since we are already familiar with the method of restoring the morphological portrait of the
original types before crossing, and the definition of characteristic features, let us go further, and
consider the modern anthropological types of people in order to test this methodology at
practice.

Take, for example, the modern population of India and its environs. From the data on history,
and recently on genetics, we know that somewhere around four to five thousand years ago,
numerous groups from Europe entered India and stayed there for quite some time, and then
returned, while some of these groups, remained there, gradually contributing to the gene pool
of the local population, over the course of following millennia.

It follows from our concept, since the morphological features are determined by genes, the
europeoid traits would have to be reflected in the manifestation of the observed anthropological
types in India and other adjacent territories. But is this so? Below are some photographs, and a
comparison of specific examples (mostly photographs of Indian actors), with averages of
anthropological types' composites46 who, most probably, participated in the five thousand years
old hike from Europe to India, and are also two of most observed types today in Europe. This
data is consistent and with the excavation of numerous burial mounds from different eras.

The term "nordid" corresponds to the narrow headed, blonde, Nordic type, very often and not
without a basis associated with the yDNA haplogroup R1a, which, in some areas of India,
reaches a mark of 25% of the total population.

The term "faelid" - (faelid), corresponds to a broad (wide) headed europeoid type, also known
as the northern Cro-Magnon.

46
Composite – Average portrait expressing average-median characteristics of faces, in group of people

63
64
65
Well, there are concrete examples, but we compared the anthropological composite, so let's
compare it with other composites.

66
Carefully observe the morphology, or the so-called face geometry, and not the color of the skin
and eyes. The similarity here is obvious. The morphological outlines of the narrow headed
"Nordid", and the european wide headed Cro-Magnon "Faelid", are easily perceptible in the
facial features of the Indians, as well as in individual representatives, and as in composites.

Applying the above-described methodology for identifying characteristic phenotypic traits to

the population of southern Asia, and comparing this data to data of other populations of the
Earth, in order to solve the riddle of the main types and subtypes that participated in the
formation of modern people, the following results were finally deduced:

1. In the formation of all today's types and subtypes of the south of Asia, as well as other types
and subtypes from all over the world, participated by most the hybrid groups, qualitatively of
distinct forms, who rose from crossings of various proportions, between different species of the
genus Homo. Thus, most ancient groups were more homogeneous (generally), than the later
ones, which is consistent with data on fossil remains. Consequently, it is reasonable to assume
that several times over the past several million years, groups very different among themselves,
like archanthropines and sapiens, for example, met and crossed among themselves, and
sometimes the hybrids of these encounters, were viable and gave offspring, that gradually, but
surely, determined the phenotypic evolution of early hominids.

67
2. From the mark of 2 million years, to present, all groups of hominids, gradually acquire more
and more modern morphological features. However, there are also anomalies when hominids of
one million years old, sharply show progressive features, and subsequent individuals are more
archaic in morphology, which is inconsistent with the point of view of "evolution", but it is fully
explainable by interbreeding or crossing. Also, the jumps in the change and the acquisition of
signs are too sharp and quick in nature and timescale, to have an "evolutionary" basis, but
again, such sudden jumps are quite acceptable in the event of a hybridization between
dissimilar species of man.

3. These groups, partially interbred with each other, and then stayed in periods of relative
isolation, which allowed them to consolidate their characteristic phenotypic combination, that
has manifested itself, and still appears in modern populations, in part or almost whole, as
characteristic anthropological types and subtypes. These periods of isolation explain the
phenomenon of calm, when for segments of tens and hundreds of thousands of years,
populations of archanthropes show no new variants of signs.

4. Combining the analysis of ancient fossil skulls and reconstructions to them, with the
methodology for identifying phenotypic traits among modern humans, characteristic features of
some of the oldest sub-types, and other primordial, purebred species, were revealed.

From our point of view, the populations of southern Asia are also hybrids between sapiens and
other species, like the rest of humanity, but the peculiarity of this population is that the crossing
of the sapiens representatives occurred mainly with the West Asian type of erectus - the direct
descendants of which, are today's near-eastern phenotypes, and from the southeast, with the
Australian erectus - whose heirs are today's Papuans, Melanesians and Australian Aborigines. In
this australian erectus variant, the manifested traits were in favour of the local Negro-
floresiensis alike type, the fact of which, is consecutive with the morphology of the modern day
Papuans, Melanesians and Australian aborigines.

The task was to restore these ancient types and sub-types in graphic illustrations.

68
1. Negrito rainforest hominid type.

One of the most ancient types. Most likely, either is one of the original species, or is
morphologically close to this.

Hominids of small stature, from 1-1.3 meters in height. Endomorph body form. The brain
volume is quite small - about 500 cc. Strong hair growth on the body, and a moderate hairiness
on the face, with a rare beard. The forehead is low, sloping. Pronounced supraorbital ridge. The
skin is very dark, mostly black. Hair on the head is curly, of short length. Nose wide, flat (snub
in admixtures). Eyes small, round in shape. Mouth very wide with thick lips, and big teeth. The
jaws are pushed forward. The shape of the head is ovoid. The cranial index is high (about 95),
hyperbrachycrania, or brightly expressed shortness of the head. Short and thick neck. Long
arms and short legs. The layer of subcutaneous fat is mainly distributed on buttocks and around
them - the phenomenon of steatopygia. Apart from this phenomenon, this type shows no signs
of significant fat deposits. Owns a thick skin. A similar morphology with Australopithecus.
Populations with the largest number of somatic traits of this type, are found in the tropical
forests of Africa, Oceania, South Asia, and Australia. In the past, and in the middle and
southern America.

69
2. Mongoloid hominid type.

This type is also one of the main, probably very ancient. Morphologically almost identical to the
forest type, but has its own characteristic features, such as: most pronounced cheekbones
(zygomathic bones), double epicanthus, and slightly oblique eyes (tilted to the bottom towards
the nose). Hair is black, stiff, of medium length. Skin is dark brown in color, with a yellowish
tinge. The subcutaneous fat layer is evenly distributed on the body, which is another difference
from the forest type. Hairiness on the body is weakly expressed, as on the face. The forehead is
low, slightly sloping, the supraorbital ridge is moderately expressed. Very little is known about
its origin. Most likely, its distinctive characteristics, are due to admixture with a particular
species (or is a specie itself, although the origin of its distinctive features is not quite clear). The
closest to him on the structure of the skull, from the ancient hominids, stands Paranthropus
Bosei.

70
3. Dinaromorphic erectus.47

The most ancient representatives of this subtype, the early erectus, expressed rather archaic
features akin to the morphology of the rainforest type, although they already had an enlarged
brain volume. However, as time passed, the erectus began to acquire gradually, in general,
such new signs as: long-headedness, oblong face and a narrow skull. In addition, the nose
began to thrust forth, more and more, and the eye holes gradually expanded. All these new
acquired signs, went along, with the increasing volume of the skull, i.e. the size of the brain.

Generally, these signs are not the only progressive features that are manifested in erectus "as
from nowhere". A good example of such anomalies is the skull "Sangiran 12", which has such a
width of the skull, which is found only among the Sapiens-Cro-Magnon people. Meanwhile, this
skull is at least 700 thousand years old. The remaining skulls, from Java (Sangiran), Eurasia
(Dmanisi, Georgia), and Africa (Koobi Fora, Kenya), clearly follow a certain phenotypical
pattern: an elongated and narrow skull with a long face.

47
Dinaromorphic, dinaromorph - having the morphology of the modern sub-type "dinaric". Although the modern
Dinaric type is not identical in all the manifested features (oblong face, flat occiput, short-headedness, convex nose
and sloping forehead) with our West Asian erectus (oblong face, convex occiput, long-headedness, straight or
convex nose and sloping forehead), nonetheless, except for the difference in the length of the skull and the shape
of the occiput, as it demonstrates general features alike those of the erectus, this name was chosen.

71
Of course, in all these skulls, there are various archaic variations. According to our theory, these
variations are explained by the cross between hybrid hominids, and the variety of
manifestations of features due to the unstable combination of genes. Some of them had more
progressive features than others, while others had archaic features - without almost any
progressive signs, representing their ancient phenotype. It is this phenomenon that created a
whole variety of phenotypes observed in African and Eurasian hominids preceding the erectus.
By this, we do not exclude the reality of the existence of such subspecies as, for example,
"ergaster" or "rudolfensis," but only assert that these subspecies are located near the boundary
between early hominids and erectus, showing signs in either direction.

Later, this very erectus, due to new waves of crossing and acquiring genes from the sapiens,
and quite possibly from another species, was transformed. Of course, not quite right away.
Ancient and relatively ancient phenotypes still appeared in the population of archanthropines,
but a new tide of genes caught their general phenotypic portrait, and brought it to change.

The new waves of genetic drift from the now unknown population, to the side of erectus,
gradually, but steadily, impacted - and some groups of erectuses transformed into those that
we know now as "Heidelbergs" and "Neanderthals".

72
But the West Asian (dinaromorphic) erectus also does not represent a separate species, but
rather a unique archaic subtype, whose phenotypical evolution, can be traced back to very
ancient times. From the mark of at least two million years, it has been possible to observe this
morphology among different hominids, in which predominantly archaic features manifest, but
the general outlines of the future-to-be dinaromorphic erectus, are easily spotted.

4. Early cro-magnoid admixtures. Homo Antecessor.

1. Reconstruction of Homo Antecessor, dating at least 700 thousand years.

2. Reconstruction of Homo Rhodesiensis, Broken-Hill (Kabwe), 130-300 thousand years.48
3. Reconstruction of Neanderthal, Tabun I (Israel), 100 thousand years.
4. Photograph of modern man, cromagnid phenotype “borreby”49

It has already been noted above that, in addition to the transformation of ancient rainforest
hominids into archanthropines, by the acquirement of new dinaromorphic features - which is an
obvious consequence of crossing (with representatives of a now little known or unknown
species), there are also other morphological abnormalities in the skulls of some fossil
archanthropines. These anomalies cannot be attributed to archaic variations, nor to the new
dinaromorphic type. But all these anomalous variations are easily compatible with the
morphology of the sapiens, by several parameters.

Let's start with "Sangiran 12". “… Age: 0.7-1.15 million. Huge width of the occipital bone.
The skulls of Sangiran 2, 4, 12, 17 exceed in this indicator the individual maximum of
the modern man, and, along with some other archaic hominids, form the upper boundary
of the variability of hominids in general ... “50

48
Source: http://antropogenez.ru/reconstructions/
49
Source: “Races of Europe” – Carleton S. Coon, plate n.5, fig 1.
50
Source: http://antropogenez.ru/fossil/225/

73
 In the third picture by order, or the
left one from the bottom, you can
clearly see the huge width of the
back of this skull. And how the
cranial bones develop? "By shape of
the brain." Here we have it, some
previously unknown form.

Sima de los Huesos Cranium 14. Age: 325 thousand y. - 600 thousand y. Skull of a child from
many fragments. The brain volume is ~ 1200 cm3. Of course, in this case, is a longer skull,
but the width of it, is still impressive. This is clearly seen from the picture "D". Also in the
picture "A, C", it is quite understandable that the forehead is almost vertical (a sign of sapiens).
Let's pay attention to the pictures from below, and compare them.

74
Singa. Age:>133±2 thousand years ago.51
Brain volume 1500 cm3

51
Source: http://antropogenez.ru/fossil/325/

75
Here is the skull of a modern human, anthropological "borreby" type. This phenotype is also
known as the reference Cro-Magnid type, or the type closest to the Sapiens' morphology.52

What follows from this? Though still, science is not aware of any fossil Sapiens over 300,000
years old (the whole skull of an adult specimen), the sapiental admixture of morphological
traits, is observed in the phenotypes of archanthropines, at least starting from 1.15 million to
700,000 years ago. The fact that no fossil sapiens of the same age have been found so far, in
no way contradicts this fact. It can be that because, either it have not yet been found, or,
because this population of Sapiens, lived in a closed society, away from other hominids, and
perhaps cremated their dead also. Where should we look? There are many options on this
subject. Especially here it is possible to mention the northern Asia. But this question belongs to
another topic.

The crossing between Sapiens and hominids was episodic, and it was a rare phenomenon, but
sufficient to change the general morphology of the archanthropes, especially the outlines and
dimensions of their brains, which, if weren't particularly affected in length, then for a huge
width in the skulls of archanthropines, even by modern standards, Sapiens are clearly
responsible.

But why is there an increase in width, exclusively in the back of the skull?

52
Borreby Male #8 (Torgersen, 1976)

76
 53

For a detailed analysis, in this case, of the morphology of the skull, let us recall one established
fact: - the shape of the skull is determined by the growth and development of the
brain.
Since we know that modern man is a hybrid specie, we will try to find a firm answer, by
observing among the variations of distinct combination of different attributes.

1. Liujiang man, approximately 68-150 thousand years, Sapiens, approx. brain volume 1400 cc.

2.Skull "Bukuran", 0,7-1,15 million years, archantrope-Erectus, brain volume 916 cc.

3. Skull of "Dmanisi 2280", 1.7 million years, archanthrope-Ergaster, brain volume 775-780 cc.

53
Authors and sources:
1. Jacques Cinq-Mars, Steve Wang, 2008
2. Dominique Grimaud-Hervé et al. Comparative morphological and morphometric description of the hominin
calvaria from Bukuran (Sangiran, Central Java, Indonesia) // Journal of Human Evolution 63 (2012)
3. Gabunia L.K., Vekua A., Lordkipanidze D. et al. Earliest Pleistocene hominid cranial remains from Dmanisi,
Republic of Georgia: Taxonomy, geological setting and age // Science, 2000

77
Oh, and what's wrong with that? Here is the older skull (3), with the smallest volume of the
brain, then this indicator increases in the second (2), and reaches up to the modern indicators
in the Liujiang man (1). It would seem so. But then, why in Dmanisi 2280, which is about
600,000 years older than Bukuran, the back of the head is more like the back of of the head
of a sapiens, and why does this skull have a nearly flat vault, just like the man of Liujiang?

Not mentioning that the superciliary arches(brow ridge), are more mildly expressed. In a word,
if one not only looks at the figure denoting the volume of the brain, and the age of the find, but
pays attention to the general skull morphology - the picture becomes more interesting. If we
consider these specimens, not knowing their dated age, we can confidently say, that despite a
slightly smaller skull volume, "Dmanisi 2280" possesses a combination of characters
closer to the modern man than "Bukuran".
One more interesting observation. As can be seen in the picture number 2, the front part of
the skull "Bukuran", which once contained the neocortex, is the least developed from all
parts of the skull.
At the same time, in Dmanisi 2280, which is 600,000 years older, the frontal or anterior
part is somewhat more developed, and, in the Liujiang skull, the anterior part is
almost equal to the occipital part in width. Since in the Liujiang skull, there are faint signs
of archanthropus admixture, as shown, for example, by the red circle - slightly protruding
superciliary arches, it can be asserted that in it - the predominant features of the broad-faced
Sapiens predominate, with a small fraction of the admixture of the archanthropus. To the same
extent, in the other two above-mentioned examples, the signs of the archanthropus are in
the first place, and both have a significant narrowing in the anterior region of the
skull responsible for the neo-cortex capacity.
A very simple conclusion, is, that a less developed neocortex, consequently and a
smaller front part of the skull, is also characteristic of the archanthropus, and the
opposite, is the characteristic sign of Sapiens. Since we know that the Liujiang skull is
already a hybrid, and it has the width of the front part of the skull, slightly smaller than the
width of the occipital part, it would be very reasonable to assume that the most developed
neocortex, conditions the anterior portion of the skull to be equal in width to the
occipital cranium part.

Since it is now clear, that the anterior lobes of the brain are responsible for high-
quality mental activities, which due to their complex nature, are required to have a
neural network more perfect, for these high-quality mental phenomena to occur.

Nobody will dispute the fact that in order for a car to develop a speed of 200 km per hour, its
engine should at least be more perfect than a car's engine that reaches a maximum speed of
100 km per hour? So it is in our case. Of course, in order to develop a high speed, and continue
to drive at this speed for a long time without harm to the car, it is necessary that other parts,
not only the engine, should have certain qualities, such as a better suspension, or a more
powerful radiator.

78
 For complex mental processes of a particular nature - you need your own complex engine.
And, since for one reason or another, these traits of a greater neo-cortex were not compatible
with the genetics of archanthropines, they were partially lost. This is, what determines the
smaller neo-cortex, in varying degrees and proportions, both in ancient hominid
archanthropines, and in relatively late sapiens, Liujiang man included.

Since the posterior parts of the brain perform less complicated functions than the anterior
ones, their dimensions, were more or less preserved, because, the genetic code of such
characters was more compatible with the same DNA regions in archanthropines, than those
DNA sites responsible for the structure of the neocortex, which it is reasonable to assume, were
generally absent in the early rainforest types, and poorly developed in archanthropines.

In the same way as a car, lacking parts needed to support high-speed driving, will not drive
fast - also here.

Nature, in most cases, goes along the path with the least resistance. Later, when some of the
now-observed fossil individuals, had more sites available in their DNA code to support complex
thought processes, the anterior lobes of the brain, consequently and the skull, also increased in
width. Here things took a similar turn.

In the same picture above, a weak contour of blue color, encircles the supposed front boundary
of the skull, as the original sign of the specie Sapiens.

As a result of these findings, a task was undertaken to restore the characteristic or initial signs
of both Sapiens, and of the unknown dinaromorphic type. At first stage, several major
morphological features were known, which formed the basis for a further research. Applying the
earlier described methodology, more such signs were revealed. The main obstacle to the
reconstruction of the original portrait was that sometimes the observed signs were
characteristic not for the original type, but for variation of subtypes (hybrid morphology), some
older, others closer to the present. A few of the signs taken for the original ones, were found
out to fall into the hybrid group, and were reclassified, as a greater number of relatively
extreme examples of trait expression were studied.

Combining this methodology with other "control" methods, such as comparing the obtained
sign of a straight and high forehead with data on matrix fields, in particular about the fact that
the brain determines the growth of the skull, from the work of Harold S. Burr, it became
possible to increase the accuracy , thereby lowering the error mark to a minimum.

79
5. Sapiens – Cro-magnon.

Primary type. Very high stature, from two to three meters. Mesomorph (athletic built). The
brain volume is more than 2000 cc. Short-headed (cranial index around 80). Without
superciliary arches. The face is square, eyes are wide-set, nose small, very thin. The chin and
jaws are pronounced. The ears are small. Torso is short, with very long legs. Hair growth on the
body is weak, except for the beard and hair. The hair is light-blonde, eyes are blue, white skin.

6. Predinar. Long-headed type.

Primary type. Of average height, about 1.5 - 1.6 meters. Thin build (ectomorph). The brain
volume is large, probably not inferior proportionally, to that of the Sapiens brain. Very long
head, head index about 65 or below. The skull is narrow. Without superciliary arches. Face
oblong and narrow. Eyes are large, close-set. The nose is thin and long, slightly convex, and
connects to the forehead (the nasion shows no depth). The mouth is small, lips thin, the chin is
almost absent, i.e. has small dimensions and is pushed back. Jaws small and weakly developed.

80
The neck is long and thin. Hair on the body is weak or absent. Eyes are light brown, red hair,
bronze skin with a red tint.

Most of these signs, were revealed only by observing the differences in the phenotypes of
modern people, some by studying the outlines of ancient skulls. At first, it was thought that
there are two varieties of Sapiens, one of which is short-headed with a broad face, the second
narrow-headed with a long skull. But such a state of things left many gaps, many signs that
remained unattributed, not to one specie, or type. Thus, this state of affairs did not explain in
any way: the red hair color, the reddish skin tone, the convex nose shape, the protruding
occiput, and the high cranial vault. I had to review everything. Gradually, revealing all the new
characteristic features of the original types, I came to a very stunning but still possible
conclusion: the so-called Nordic and Mediterranean subtypes, are hybrid subtypes, mostly
between Sapiens-Cro-Magnon and the Predinar type. This explains a lot, if not all.

Knowing exactly which signs were inherent of the Predinarian type, I began to look for at least
some traces of it in history, generally. There exist a phenomenon observed in the history of
many peoples, from different parts of the world, which continues to this day. This is a "a
phenomenon of strange hats." It is clear that such a statement will probably cause a giggle, but
such a phenomenon really exists, and it is directly related to the Predinar type. Let everyone
draw their own conclusions.

81
82
So what? - some may say. A pair of tall hats, and that’s it. However, it is not only a way too
often happenstance, but a sharp regularity, that these tall hats, are mostly met with those who
are state or spiritual chiefs. I.e., the one who wore/are wearing such hats, clearly had a high
social status, and had power over a certain group, whether big or not, is not essential. It is
significant that other people recognized certain desirable qualities in them, and such a hat was
an attribute of the high rank.

A curious reader can find in a short time a lot of photographs on the topic "artificial
deformation of the skull." This was done almost everywhere, from the very antiquity. The
question is, why? Why apply so much effort to change the shape of the skull? After all, in
addition to the fact that it can affect the health of the body and the development of the brain,
this process still requires a significant effort.

Is it not for the same reason, that today, women are applying cosmetics to give the skin a
lighter shade, and many go through plastic surgery to have a thinner nose, etc.? - In order to
be like some desired phenotype or character, changing manifested somatic signs in different
ways, in order to achieve similarity with this desired type.

Here is a brief theory. People engaged in this artificial deformation in order to be similar to the
original Predinarian type, the morphology of which enjoyed high respect in ancient times (and
to this day), probably because representatives of this type possessed something desirable,
which others, at least most, did not. The presence of most of the signs of the Predinar type in
one person (especially a long skull with a high vault) showed this person's high status and
origin, as well as the right to power, or to any other high status in society. So people and
engaged in artificial deformation, with such perseverance.

83
 Among the many photographs found on the Internet on the theme of artificial deformation, a
particularly sensitive effect is rendered by the skull of Paracas, from Peru.
Imagine my surprise, when I discovered the amazing work of Marcia K. Moore.54 Although there
is a clear similarity with my reconstruction, the details in her works, are at least, impressive.
Meanwhile, as my reconstruction is based on observations of phenotypes, her works of
restored portraits, are based on real skulls.

54
Marcia K. Moore, source: https://www.marciakmooreciamarstudio.com/

84
85
And now, to refresh the memory, let's turn a couple of pages back, and look at the hats. The
similarity of form is impressive, is it not?

86
 Modern anthropological types

The peculiarity of some anthropological types, and their differences from other sub-types of
the earth population, are different ratios of inherited genes and the sequence of
combinations of fixed characteristics.

How exactly is the anthropological type formed? Recall first that the anthropological type, is
a portrait of the aggregate average morphological similarities observed in one or
more populations that are grouped according to some previously fixed
morphological features. It can be said otherwise. Briefly - this is by what exactly people are
alike each other.

In people, who are part of a relatively isolated population, certain characteristics acquire a
certain stability, both in manifestation and in their form, and these signs, precisely in the
characteristic combination for a given population, are inherited. In such way,
generally, happens the fixation of the signs and the formation of phenotypes, and subtypes, or
- races and subraces.

In addition to natural and sexual selection, in the manifestation of the allele-genes with the
most stable and high potential, socio-cultural selection also participates. Individuals of this
population who most successfully fit into the internal environment of the society, and into the
external environment, and distribute, in general, the most successful variants of their fixed
alleles, make a significant contribution to the development of the phenotype / phenotypes of
this population.

Over time, all these factors act so, that the population, even only relatively isolated, becomes
more homogeneous.

These attractive-for-selection signs, can be either behavioral or mental, or morphological or

physical. Due to all these factors of influence, the phenotype for a given population becomes in
time, a unique subtype, when compared to other phenotypes, encountered in other
populations.

That's why you can recognize a Indian (hindu) from a distance, and not confuse it with a
Berber, or say, with a Mexican, even after a hundred generations. All this, of course, is
conditional, if during this time, external admixtures from other populations that may, to a

87
greater or lesser extent, affect the general morphology of the anthropological type, will not be
introduced.

So we came close to one of the questions that interest us - about how the anthropological
types were formed and are now being formed. Why and how does this happen? Since speaking
of anthropological types, we are talking about a set of similar features observed in a group with
a certain number of representatives, that is, people, one must bear in mind that the
preservation and manifestation of attributes depends on several factors.

As it was said above, there is a selection of signs: at the first (group) stage - through sexual
and natural selection, and at the second (individual) stage - by selection of the variant of
the characteristic, which:

a) is most favorable for manifestation in the future habitat

b) has a sufficient energy potential for manifestation
c) is synchronous with the common matrix, or with other DNA segments directly linked to
this trait

The energetic potential of the variant of the trait, is due to the potential of the
allele-genes that encode it. In simpler words, does the variant of the sign, have sufficient
energy to sit down in its place, and if that is not enough, it gives its place to the one who has.

The degree of synchronicity of a variant of a characteristic with the common matrix, is nothing
else, than the degree of its stability with other existing characteristics, which gives a certain
greater or lesser stability to the organism, ensuring this way, or not, its survival and
reproductive success.

Or in other words - is the code of the newly-implanted variant of the feature, stable and
consistent with others, or conditionally "dangling from side to side"? It may also be that the
variant of the feature with a higher potential, will be suppressed by a variant of the trait with a
lower potential, but which is more stable in this DNA sequence, and in the given matrix
sequence. This is a complex system, in which there are many cogs, always spinning and
interacting with each other, and with the environment. We do not need to disassemble and
study it, and since it does not represent a special interest for this topic, we will leave this
mystery of nature to other curious minds of our time.

Recall that:

Phenotype - the sum of the manifested signs, read from the inherited genetic code.

Genotype - the sum of all available variants of signs, both manifested and nonmanifested,
in the inherited genetic code.

88
 That is, if we arbitrarily take a group of one hundred people, more or less similar to each other,
and photograph each of them, and then compose the average portrait-composite, we will get
a portrait of the anthropological type of this group.

Using a composite, and then comparing it with each photo separately, it will be possible to
notice that some people are more similar to the composite, while others are less similar. Those
that are most similar to the composite are called representatives of this
anthropological type. Those that are less similar - we call the variations of this
anthropological type.

The difference between the first and second, is that the former(representatives) have a
higher number of features that coincide with the composite. While the latter also shows
signs that coincide with the composite, to a greater or lesser degree, they(variations) still
have several signs that are sharply or moderately distinguishable from the same
characteristics of the composite.

These distinguished features can also be similar to each other, which will create variations
within the "variation" group, a somewhat smaller, lower level variation groups.

For example, let's take a map of the most common anthropological types in Europe.

On it:

"Transitional subtypes" - Middle European types, i.e. types of transitional between Nordic
and Mediterranean types

"Cromagniform mediterranean subtypes" - Transitional subtypes between Cro-Magnon and

Mediterranean morphology

Eastern Cro-magnids - Eastern Cro-Magnon types

Western-Cro-magnids - Northern Cro-Magnon types

89
 55
55
This chart has been created by using composites from: http://www.humanphenotypes.net

90
If we take, for example, the first row, called "Nordids", and create a composite of all four
photographs, the result will be a portrait of their general anthropological type.

And then, comparing the resulting composite with each photograph separately, and identifying
those features that distinguish each photo from the composite, these will be the features of
variation within this anthropological type, in which all four photographs take part.

In the same way, if to create a composite of all photographs on this map, the result will be an
anthropological composite of all the europeoid subtypes. And that by which each photo will be
similar to the general composite, will constitute the characteristic features of the general
anthropological type, or the middle features of all the europid subtypes. And those features that
do not occur in the composite, but are observed in separate photographs more than one
instance - will be features of variation of the general anthropological type, or variants of
hybrids, the most common combinations, somewhat different from the general portrait. The
same features that occur only in one subtype, and do not occur in others, are particular
characteristic features of this subtype, the uniqueness of which is inherent only to it.
Now let's take another example. Let us investigate on so-called Dinaric subtype, and its
transitional forms. By the method of feature identification described above, it was found that
the Dinaric subtype, is a stable combination of signs of the West Asian, dinaromorphic erectus56
and those of Sapiens (Cro-Magnon).57 The gradient, based on traits, goes this way : Dinaric,
Norid, Faelid. The forth picture is their composite.

58

56
Which is a hybrid, of the rainforest hominid type, and of Predinar type, possibly with a small share of Sapiens-
Cro-Magnon genes. Its most ancient variations are extremely rare. Neanderthal and Heidelberg manifestations, are
more likely, and the most common manifestations, are phenotypes from the Upper Paleolithic, Mesolithic, and
even Neolithic times, when the representatives of these subtypes had, in general, more sapient characteristics
than before.
57
Using the detailed technique described in the previous chapters, a curious reader can see for himself.
58
The composite has been created with the help of: http://www.morphthing.com

91
This composite, is their common anthropological type, or the average combination of the
manifested signs of all three representatives.

But why are they so distinct? In order to answer this question, there is not enough just a front
photograph, it will be necessary to take into account other signs, where these subtypes are
more sharply distinguished. It is by these differences in the observed features, between these
three, and other phenotypes, that can give us a clear example of how the possible variations of
a combination of the same characteristics, manifest themselves.

Assign a couple of control somatic or morphological signs, and observe the differences.59

Comment.

In the comparative schemes given below, two original types’ traits are being compared (as
two different colours), the characteristic signs of which, were involved mainly in the
development of the compared subtypes. This means, that in addition to the main components,
it is also possible the existence of smaller ones. How does this change things? - It does not
change them in a particular way, what only needs to be taken into account, is that it is possible
that there is a small fraction of an admixture of some third subtype, besides the two main ones.
The third, residual, or minimal influence of a primal type, will obviously not be included in the
graphs listed below to its full extent, but only most strong influences will be mentioned.

How to understand this? Due to the fact that crosses come in different proportions, and in
different combinations, and the phenotypic variations are large enough, it happens that one
individual can show at once signs of three or more types. So in our case, and in modern
anthropological subtypes, there are some signs that belong to the third type, although the
share of this is not significant, nevertheless, it exists. And this is not necessarily due to direct
crossing, but it can also be the result of the adoption of features during crossing with a hybrid.
How does this translate into practice? Here we have, for example, the modern Dinaric subtype,
which is mainly a hybrid of Predinar and Cro-magnon. But this very Dinaric subtype also has
features of rainforest hominids, such as: black curly hair, and small black eyes. Does this mean
that the first Dinarics interbred with African or South Asian hominids? Not at all. Let us explain
why. These signs could be acquired from the dinaromorphic Erectus, in which, such variants of
alleles were already available. So he handed them over. Such signs gained fixation in some.

That is why, the genetic sequences in Australians and Africans are very different from the DNA
sequences of Europeans, or Western and Central Asians. But, at the same time, many Western
Asians and Europeans - show some signs of rainforest hominids. Of course, the difference in
DNA positions can still be explained as a consequence of crossing the latter not with African and
South-Eastern Asian hominids of tropical forests, but with hominids of the forests of India.
There is an essential part of logic in that, as they were closer positioned one to another.

59
Occiput type – occiput form, i.e. convex occiput – presence of occipital bun. Flat occiput – absence of occipital
bun.

92
 The diversity in the qualities and quantities of the manifested features in different phenotypical
combinations, is due precisely to periods of isolation, and then to periods of interaction, that
have occurred to varying degrees in different hominid groups.

With this in mind, it becomes more clear why many of the phenotypes of modern black
Africans (Sub-Saharan Africans - below the Sahara desert) and Australian aborigines, have a
generally long skull and oblong face (trait fixation), and only sometimes a broad face
(variation), while Australopithecus and other types of rainforest hominids have round skulls and
small faces. Same phenomenon - distinct manifestations.

To all of this, we do not deny the possibility of introducing in different phenotypes at

subsequent stages, the signs of the original Predinar type. This could also happen, but these
contributions, if they existed, had a lesser effect on the development of modern phenotypes
than the influence of the dinaromorphic erectus, when it comes to proportions.

There is a letter at the top of each post. The letter "D" denotes signs of the Predinar type. The
letter "C" indicates signs of the original Sapiens-Cro-Magnon type. The white line shows the
overall quality of this attribute, for the most prominent representatives of this subtype
(tendency). The tracing transparent white light around the white line, represents the most
common variations of the sign, observed in this subtype.

93
 As you can see, all the four subtypes, are just different combinations of the same original
attributes. The difference is how, or by which mechanism, these signs were combined so, that
they gave exactly such a morphological, or phenotypic result.

Here it is necessary to make a detailed disassembly.

In order to make it clear how features are inherited from different species, combined in the
offspring under different combinations - thereby creating morphological different subtypes - we
will use the simplified scheme of classification, of brighter and more easily observed
combinations of features - in a variety of cranial forms. For that, we divide the skull into
conditional areas, we will observe how in these areas, the signs of different types are
combined, sometimes creating new forms, that in time grow fixation and are transmitted by
inheritance - thereby forming a permanent manifestation of the phenotype in several
generations.

94
 1. Temples and common form of the skull 2. Vault 3. Upper part of the forehead
4. Lower part of the forehead 5. Nose 6. Eye 7.Cheekbones 8.Ears 9. Mouth
10. Jaws 11. Chin 12. Neck 13. Occiput

In this example, the colors used - have no role except for a clear expression of the
delimitation of areas. In the below examples, however, the colors will be used for their
intended purpose, determining the quality of the manifested feature. In the following
example, we investigate a couple of variation-examples of the manifestation of the Dinaric
subtype, in the phenotypes of different people.

Bordeaux-red denotes the signs of the Predinar. In blue - signs of the original type of
Sapiens-Cro-magnon. Green – rainforest hominid.
Lighter or mixed shades indicate admixture.

95
As it can be seen, there is no coincidence in the similar looks of the so-called Neanderthals, and
people of the modern Dinaric subtype. General morphological likeness, can easily denote a
proportional measure of the similarity of genes. Obviously, changes or variations in the coding
are possible, caused by different factors of influence, but the whole picture is very inert and is
caused by existing genes or initial signs.

In other words - it is only possible to choose one option from the set of possible options.

But the spontaneous invention of something new, or the creation of a new species from
another, very distinctive species, only under the influence of some strange radiation that
strangely appeared in one location, for a certain time, and then mysteriously disappeared –
seems somehow doubtful. While this radiation irradiated only some ape-like primates, but left
others at rest - it sounds even more improbable. And then, these irradiated apes, allegedly
under the influence of weather conditions and natural selection - lost their hairiness, grew up,
straightened, doubled their brain volume, structurally changed the form of the skeleton and
changed the position of internal organs, the speed and quality of metabolic processes, and

96
much more. It was this explanation that gave the official scientific community the question of
the origin of man on earth.

Well, such a theory has the right to exist, only that it is just too implausible. Because the
radiation creates hundreds, if not thousands or millions times more harmful mutations than
useful ones, and such an irradiated population of primates, if not would go extinct due to
irradiation, they would obviously be subject to extinction in the first generations, as a
consequence of this nondirectional, chaotic rearrangement in the DNA. In addition, even if this
hypothesis would explain some adaptations, it would not explain entirely new features acquired
and manifested, previously non existing even to the smallest extent.

Now, science is gradually moving in a new direction, but while it throwed aside the theory of
the common origin of mankind in Africa, in a strange way, still adheres to most of the
postulates of this theory. However, time will tell. In the meantime, let's return to the analysis of
our signs.

Let's pass, to the somatic analysis, of similar in morphology, several other anthropological
subtypes.

Here is another example of two subtypes, consisting of a different combination of all the same
primordial traits. For an easier understanding and comparison of the graphs and comparison of
signs with real examples, we will present the next map of the most common subtypes of the
Arian race outside Europe, or the so-called Europid subtypes outside Europe.

97
«Cromagniform subtypes» - Subtypes of Cro-Magnon morphology
«Dinaroform cromagnid subtypes» - Subtypes of dinaroform-Cro-Magnon shape
"Mediterranids" - Mediterranean subtypes outside Europe

98
As was noted above, under the letter "D", the signs of the original Predinar type are given, but
also the "black hair" and the "curly" variant are included in the "hair type and color" position.
Since other, original signs of Predinar were partially replaced by a small admixture of rainforest
type hominid genes. Thus, the signs of "hair color" and "hair type" are not a twofold different
direction traits, but they are two variants of this feature that is present among modern people,
as a consequence of crossing. Black hair colour, is an initial sign of rainforest hominids, and the
red hair color, is the original sign of the Predinar type. But since the Archanthropus-Erectus
inherited both these variants, and then passed them onto "anatomically modern people", we
listed them as they are.

99
100
101
102
 60

In the first case, the subtype named "Gobid", is a manifestation of predominantly

morphological traits inherent to the original Mongoloid type, compared to the second, sub-
type "East-Baltid" - a manifestation of predominantly those features that correspond to the
broad-faced Sapiens or Cro-Magnon man. Even so, they're very close one to another. In the
60
The letter "M" denotes a set of features of the original Mongoloid type

103
second example, it can be seen, at first glance, that the geographically distant subtypes of
"South Sinid" and "Lappid" are very similar in terms of somatic morphological features,
which is conditioned by similar proportions and the sequence of combinations of
characteristics.

104
105
Here is a similar situation, as in the example above. Two subtypes with similar morphological
and somatic traits, but distanced by a geographical distance of several thousand kilometers.
Probably, you also noticed more than once people from different parts of the world, have
similar features. A couple of examples in your mind have already arisen?

106
 Of course, this is not a statement that the alpinids of Europe are the hybrids of the Negrid and
Aryan subtypes. This means that, some europid phenotypes exhibit ancient archaic signs of
Erectus, in such way that they are not inherited from the Predinar type, but from rainforest type
of hominids. Due to the fact that this division of the rainforest type hominid population occurred
before the erectus arose - which took place at least almost two million years ago, Europeans
are very far genetically to Africans, but despite this, they show, albeit rarely, some signs
inherent in African subtypes (and also Australian, and Dravidian), such as an upturned nose,
curly hair, prognathism of the lower jaw, etc.

It is very remarkable to observe the upper row of the next map. In a simple way, there
appears to be a gradient in the transition of subtypes, with one extreme manifestation of
characteristics to the other. From "Tasmanid" - closer to one of the variations of the ancient
dinaromorphic type of erectus, to "Ainu", which already seems very difficult to distinguish from
the more exotic representatives of the Aryan race of Cro-Magnon morphology, such as the
subtype "Berid".

107
"Why did an intelligent hominid with a large brain, that looks so
similar to us - disappear?"

Assumptions that tribal groups of the Neanderthal man and other archanthropines went extinct,
61
, because they were less developed, and were mostly assimilated by the populations of
modern humans, and the rest of these groups, which were isolated, went extinct, to put it
mildly, it is not convincing. The proof for this, is the existence at the height of the capitalist-
industrial era on earth, of such tribes, which retain their primal lifestyle, unchanged for
thousands of years. Yes, they are isolated, to a greater or lesser extent, but in spite of this, still
exist. And also do not forget about the fact that now on earth, live, anthropoid apes, such as
bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans. They do not differ significantly from the early, so-called,
ancestors of man. So why did Neanderthals and other Erectus types disappear? And even in a
relatively short time?

Where did the archanthropes go?

At first glance, a rather simple question, but the answer to it, is not to be formulated briefly, so
that the explanation would result understandable, detailed and accurate.

In short - they have not gone anywhere. Their genes are still alive and healthy (or at least part
of them), and are a part of the Earth population´s gene pool, in different combinations and
proportions. Although certain morphological features have survived in the features of modern
man, what has already gone by large, is precisely their phenotypes in general - a set of fixed
signs manifested in one or more individuals.62 That is, what we do not observe now, is a whole
set of signs of the ancient Erectus-archanthropus (or at least their majority), grouped and
manifested in one individual. The orangutan, or the same chimpanzee-bonobo, which differs

61
The numbers of which, are thought to be around 15,000.
62
Until recently, and even now, one can meet the ancient manifestations of some archaic variation of the
dinaromorphic erectus, among Australian aborigines and Papuans. And although their populations are small,
primarily as a consequence of assimilation and "civilization", they still preserve their life style, more or less.

108
little from Australopithecus - we do see them, but not Erectus, Heidelbergensis, Sinanthropus,
or Neanderthal.

On the one hand, this is due to the fact that the mixing of different peoples and groups during
centuries, made the populations become closer to each other, by the proportions of the
inherited genes of the Sapiens and Predinar type, that is, they are more similar to one another
by means of inherited common genes, and are different by means of inherited different genes
of different subspecies of archanthropines and combinations.
We are similar to each other, not only by the specific sequences of the genetic code
(combinations in haplogroups), but also by the proportions of the genes of which these
sequences consist, although the sections of the code manifested in some, may differ slightly
from the same code segment in others, but the general morphology, is, more or less similar.
This is the reason, that geneticists have revealed, and to this day are revealing, that the closer
to the present we look, in the genetic codes of people, the greater the variation in the form of
haplogroups and other classifications of variations in the genetic code, but at the same time,
these variations are much closer to each other, than say, the ancient archanthropus was to the
sapiens, or the sparrow to the falcon. Speaking from the point of view of morphology,
anthropology and genetics, the archanthropes did not disappear at all, but were slightly
transformed, by gaining a slightly larger proportion of signs of Sapiens and Predinar, while
mostly retaining their common ancient appearance. From this side, everything is seems clear.

Physically, the archanthropines did not disappear, but they adopted the lifestyle of the so-
called "anatomically modern people", by gradually merging and interacting with them, and,
taking in more sections of Sapiens or Predinar DNA - they were transformed into "anatomical
modern people". But since all the processes in the universe go in two directions, into action and
reaction, and here it was so.

Both Sapiens and Predinar, also transformed, taking a small share of the genetic code of
archanthropines, with which they mixed.

This led to the emergence of a multitude of human groups, mostly united by related ties and
similar in appearance, by features and proportions of the inherited genes. So the first archaic
anthropological types were formed. In other words, people are attracted to their own kind.
There were groups with more archaic appearance, there were also others predominantly
Sapiens, or those in which the Predinar type was predominant - like the Neanderthals. And
there were also bands that were somewhere in the middle. That's why there are discovered
sometimes fossil hominids, who come closer morphologically to modern humans, but are
actually older than others who're closer to anthropoid apes by their somatics. The reason is in
the inherited genes, and their proportions.

What really disappeared, except their original phenotypes, is the lifestyle of the so-called
archanthropes, of which modernity knows, as the way of life of the Neanderthal man. Why so?

109
 Let's try to understand.
Since it became clear that the Neanderthal man, in the course of our presentation of the facts,
was not a separate species, but a hybrid, possessing a sequence of genetic code slightly
different from modern people, it becomes unclear - why did he disappear? After all, he had
almost everything the same as modern people, so what happened?

Some blame the death of the Neanderthal groups on the eruption of the super volcano Campi
Flegrei in the territory of modern Italy, which occurred according to scientists' estimates about
39-40 thousand years ago. Quite interesting to this topic, may prove to be one article and one
interview, the fragments of which are given below.

"But if we consider the Neanderthals in the light of the latest data of paleoanthropology,
then were the Neanderthals so bad? Were they nasty hunters? Not at all. Did they lost to
the Cro-Magnon people in terms of technology? At least, not at once. And could the long-
legged guests from the south - the sapiens, compete with the stocky, powerful Neanderthals
adapted for a cold glacial climate? So maybe, not in Sapiens the main reason, our direct
ancestors may just have replaced them, taking profit of the Neanderthal tragedy, filling up
the vacant niche?

Petersburg archeologists - authors of the article in Current Anthropology - have long been
studying the Paleolithic monuments in the Caucasus. In this case we are talking about
excavations in the cave of Mezmaiskaya. This cave was once consistently populated by
Neanderthals, and then by Sapiens. Here in 1993, the perfectly preserved skeleton of the
Neanderthal infant was found, from whose bones later it was possible to extract DNA.

In the sediments of the cave, the authors of the study found layers containing volcanic ash
from two ancient eruptions.

The earlier ash (from the eruption of Elbrus) coincides in age with the cooling Heinrich
5, about 45 thousand years ago.

The second layer of ash (1D, from the Kazbek eruption) turned out to be synchronous
with another very large volcanic eruption that occurred in Italy (Flegrei fields, tephra
Y 5) about 40 thousand years ago».63

“…The second important result of the study of the Mezmayskaya cave, is the discovery in
the depths of the cave, of perfectly preserved human habitation levels already in the
Late Paleolithic. Here, one of the earliest cultures of a modern man in the Caucasus is

63
Причина вымирания неандертальцев – вулканическая зима? Автор: А. Соколов
http://antropogenez.ru/single-news/article/21/

110
found, which dates from the radiocarbon method from 33 to 36 thousand years, which
gives a calendar age of about 38-39 thousand years.

- The eruptions were so powerful that the climate changed? Hard to believe…

- Do not just confuse the eruption of the volcano, even the one that buried Pompeii and
Herculaneum, with large volcanic events - the so-called "climate-forming" eruptions. Over
the last 130 thousand years, such eruptions were recorded twice, the last cycle - about 40
thousand years ago.

V.B. Doronichev: This eruption of the Flegrei fields was 20-25 times more powerful
than the famous eruption of Krakatoa. Imagine 20-25 volcanoes Krakatoa,
simultaneously "triggered" in the center of Europe. The eruption of Kazbek, whose
track is found in Mezmaiskaya, is only one of these volcanoes. The overall effect of these
eruptions may be comparable to "nuclear winter". By analogy with the "nuclear winter",
the term "volcanic winter" is used.

L.V. Golovanova: Of course, one should not think that these two eruptions (the Flegrei
fields and Kazbek) occurred on the same day. When we talk about their synchronism, we
mean - within a short geological period. Perhaps, a series of eruptions occurred throughout
the Alpine belt. At present, there is new information about the eruption of St. Anne
Volcano in the Southern Carpathians around this time. Dates in the range of 35-42
thousand years.

There are a number of industries, with a long history - at first they were defined as
belonging to Sapiens, then, as belonging to Neanderthals. For example, such industries as
Chatelperron in Europe. But most importantly, after 40 thousand years ago, there are
neither transitional nor mid-Paleolithic industries, but only the late Paleolithic. Of course,
this does not mean that the Neanderthals disappeared immediately and everywhere. The
process of their extinction could have lasted tens of generations and several
thousand years.

V.B. Doronichev: According to geneticists, Neanderthals from Gibraltar in the south of the
Iberian Peninsula to Okladnikov Cave in the Altai, made up a very small population of about
12,000 individuals, 3500 of them women. And this size of the population persisted
throughout the 400,000-year history of the Neanderthals in Western Eurasia. No reduction
in population due to the resettlement of modern man according to genetics is noted. It was
their steady population size. However, despite the fact that the Neanderthals were very
widely settled, about 40-38 thousand years ago, their population quickly disappears. We

111
hypothesized that the decisive role in this was played by volcanic eruptions, and above all
the super-eruption of the Flegrei fields in Italy. With any eruption, there is the so-called
"death zone", where all life dies. But outside this zone, there were other areas, which the
eruption influenced indirectly.

L.V. Golovanova: We carried out a very interesting research - a chemical one. In

Mezmayskaia, after all, there are traces of two eruptions. Neanderthals disappear after
the second, later. So in the bones of the Neanderthal man, which existed after the
first eruption, there are a lot of harmful chemicals (heavy metals?). Volcanic eruptions
generally worsened the ecological situation.».64

Allegedly tons of volcanic dust thrown into the atmosphere, provoked a massive local cooling
and the extinction of the flora due to the long absence of sunlight, which led to the (partial)
extinction of a huge number of mammals - the meat of which the Neanderthal man ate65. As a
result - in two to three thousand years, the last groups of Neanderthals fell sharply in numbers,
and became extinct in their majority.

But just the phenomenon of two or three explosions of super-volcanoes are responsible for their
disappearance? After all, those untouched by the eruptions , could, in time, restore their
numbers. What happened?

Let's try to figure it out.

First, to identify the direction of our research, it is necessary to determine the main
distinguishing feature of the Neanderthals from other older archanthropines, and from
anthropoid apes, and the man himself. The first such feature, strikingly distinct, is the way of
life, namely, the type of nutrition.

Australopithecus – “ The diet of Australopithecus anamensis, a hominid that lived in the

east of the African continent more than 4 million years ago, was very specialized and,
according to a new study, it included foods typical of open environments (seeds, sedges,
grasses, etc.), as well as fruits and tubers.”66

64
« Ни о каких контактах неандертальцев и сапиенсов в Европе говорить не приходится»
http://antropogenez.ru/interview/159/
65
“ We show that Neanderthals, like anatomically modern humans, have a high rate of conversion of cholesterol to
coprostanol related to the presence of required bacteria in their guts. Analysis of five sediment samples from
different occupation floors suggests that Neanderthals predominantly consumed meat, as indicated by high
coprostanol proportions, but also had significant plant intake, as shown by the presence of 5β-stigmastanol”. The
Neanderthal Meal: A New Perspective Using Faecal Biomarkers, Carolina Mallol, Bertila Galván, Roger Everett
Summons, 2015.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0101045
66
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120717084813.htm

112
Paranthropus Boisei – “ This species was nicknamed Nutcracker Man for its big teeth and
strong chewing muscles, which attached to the large crest on the skull. Those features show
that Paranthropus boisei likely ate tough foods like roots and nuts. But dental microwear
patterns seen on P. boisei teeth are more similar to living fruit-eaters with fine striations,
rather than large, deep pits seen in the teeth of living species that eat grass, tough leaves
and stems, or other hard, brittle foods”.67

Erectus – “The remains of meals have been found at some Homo erectus sites in China.
These show that they ate large amounts of meat supplemented with plant foods and, in
general, had a diet similar to that of early modern humans”.68

Gorilla – “Gorillas stick to a mainly vegetarian diet, feeding on stems, bamboo shoots and
fruits. Western lowland gorillas, however, also have an appetite for termites and ants, and
break open termite nests to eat the larvae”.69

Chimpanzee – “The chimpanzee is an omnivorous frugivore. It prefers fruit above all other
food items and even seeks out and eats them when they are not abundant. It also eats
leaves and leaf buds, seeds, blossoms, stems, pith, bark and resin. Insects and meat make
up a small proportion of their diet, estimated as 2%. While the common chimpanzee is
mostly herbivorous, it does eat honey, soil, insects, birds and their eggs, and small to
medium-sized mammals, including other primates”. (interspecie cannibalism?)

Chimpanzee-Bonobo –“ The bonobo is an omnivorous frugivore; 57% of its diet is fruit,

but this is supplemented with leaves, honey, eggs, meat from small vertebrates such as
anomalures, flying squirrels and duikers, and invertebrates. In some instances, bonobos
have been shown to consume lower-order primates. Some claim bonobos have also been
known to practise cannibalism in captivity, a claim disputed by others. However, at least
one confirmed report of cannibalism in the wild of a deceased infant was described in
2008.” 70

Neanderthal - “At Spy cave, Belgium, Neanderthal diet was heavily meat based and
included woolly rhinoceros and wild sheep, characteristic of a steppe environment. In
contrast, no meat was detected in the diet of Neanderthals from El Sidrón cave, Spain, and
dietary components of mushrooms, pine nuts, and moss reflected forest gathering.
Differences in diet were also linked to an overall shift in the oral bacterial community
(microbiota) and suggested that meat consumption contributed to substantial variation

67
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/paranthropus-boisei
68
https://australianmuseum.net.au/homo-erectus
69
https://www.worldwildlife.org/stories/what-do-gorillas-eat-and-other-gorilla-facts
70
https://www.wikipedia.org

113
within Neanderthal microbiota. Evidence for self-medication was detected in an El Sidrón
Neanderthal with a dental abscess and a chronic gastrointestinal pathogen”.71

It turns out, the vast majority of them were vegans (eating fruits, greens, roots and nuts). Of
these, mainly meat-eaters, were: Erectus and Neanderthal by large quantities, and chimpanzees
and bonobos in very small quantities - which seem to be a manifestation of aggression towards
competitors, and less the satisfaction of appetite. There is also a big difference between 2% of
the chimp diet consisting of meat, and mainly the meat diet of some erectus and some (if not
most) Neanderthals.

It should also be emphasized that in all those who ate meat, or technically speaking - animal
protein, were encountered individual scenes of cannibalism, to a lesser or greater extent.

Here we should make a small digression. We already know what determined the formation of
erectus and the appearance of Neanderthals - genetically inherited signs of the Predinar type, in
arhaic rainforest hominids. It is also known that the Neanderthal man was preparing his own
meat.

In this Predinar type, the jaw, and the entire chewing apparatus is very poorly developed in
order to eat raw foods, except for that of ripe fruit, and several kinds of nuts. But even such a
poorly developed chewing apparatus can easily cope with cooked or baked food. Is it possible
that the Predinar type was an occasional meat-eater, the quality of which Neanderthal man
inherited?

"But what about Sapiens, he also ate meat?" – some may ask. Let's deal with this issue.

And so, briefly, you can notice several patterns that are built into a certain sequence. Namely:

1. Our intestines, as well as the intestines of anatomically modern people - who

inherited Sapiens' features by majority, have a length and structure similar to the
intestines of most herbivorous(vegetal-eating) animals.

2. Our jaws, when processing food, rotate from side to side, just like those of
herbivorous mammals, not alike predators’.

3. All our glands of internal secretion are not able to secret enough quantity and
quality of juices, that are able to completely digest meat. But at the same time, they
easily digest raw fruits, herbs and nuts.

Only from these simple observations, it can easily be said that the inclusion of animal protein in
the diet of forest hominids and sapiens, is unnatural, and does not coincide with their original
structure and body functions. A good analogy, may serve the use of diesel fuel for a car that is

71
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature21674

114
designed to consume gasoline. A few kilometers in this case, this car will stretch, but how much
will it last?

To this, we can add that, as in modern humans, the intestines are long, the meat, entering
them, begins to rot, releasing toxic substances that are then absorbed into the blood. The
consequences of this, is clearly not favorable.

If our theory that the Predinar type was an occasional meat-eater is correct, then this explains
the same phenomenon observed among some archanthropines, and most of the Neanderthals.

However, perhaps someone else will say that the arguments given in favor of the fact that the
natural diet of sapiens is vegan (fruits and plants), not convincing and superficial. Let's try to
examine this matter.

For a more illustrative example, here is a fragment from the book of prof. Colin Campbell's "
The China Study". It is important to note, that even if a modern man is a hybrid between
different species, including the supposed occasional meat-eater Predinar, nevertheless,
modern man is mainly the heir of the Sapiens genes, and this determines not only
observed morphological features, but also physiological or metabolic structure and functioning.

«Yet another question was whether protein intake could modify the all-important
relationship between aflatoxin dose and foci formation. A chemical is usually not
considered a carcinogen unless higher doses yield higher incidences of cancer. For
example, as the aflatoxin dose becomes greater, foci and tumor growth should be
correspondingly greater. If an increasing response is not observed for a suspect chemical
carcinogen, serious doubt arises whether it really is carcinogenic. To investigate this dose-
response question, ten groups of rats were administered increasing doses of aflatoxin, then
fed either regular levels (20%) or low levels (5-10%) of protein during the promotion

period (Chart 3.734).

size, as expected, as the aflatoxin dose was increased. The dose-response relationship was
strong and clear. However, in the animals fed 5% protein, the dose-response curve

115
completely disappeared. There was no foci response, even when animals were given the
maximum tolerated aflatoxin dose. This was yet another result demonstrating that a low-
protein diet could override the cancer-causing effect of a very powerful carcinogen,
aflatoxin. Is it possible that chemical carcinogens, in general, do not cause cancer unless the
nutritional conditions are "right"? Is it possible that, for much of our lives, we are being
exposed to small amounts of cancer causing chemicals, but cancer does not occur unless we
consume foods that promote and nurture tumor development? Can we control cancer
through nutrition?

NOT ALL PROTEINS ARE ALIKE

If you have followed the story so far, you have seen how provocative these findings are.
Controlling cancer through nutrition was, and still is, a radical idea. But as if this weren't
enough, one more issue would yield explosive information: did it make any difference what
type of protein was used in these experiments? For all of these experiments, we were using
casein, which makes up 87% of cow's milk protein. So the next logical question was
whether plant protein, tested in the same way, has the same effect on cancer promotion as
casein. The answer is an astonishing "NO." In these experiments, plant protein did not
promote cancer growth, even at the higher levels of intake. An undergraduate premedical
student doing an honors degree with me, David Schulsinger, did the study (Chart 3.842).
Gluten, the protein of wheat, did not produce the same result as casein, even when fed at
the same 20% level.

We also examined whether soy protein had the same effect as casein on foci development.
Rats fed 20% soy protein diets did not form early foci, just like the 20% wheat protein

116
diets. Suddenly protein, milk protein in this case, wasn't looking so good. We had
discovered that low protein intake reduces cancer initiation and works in multiple
synchronous ways. As if that weren't enough, we were finding that high protein intake, in
excess of the amount needed for growth, promotes cancer after initiation. Like flipping a
light switch on and off, we could control cancer promotion merely by changing levels of
protein, regardless of initial carcinogen exposure. But the cancer-promoting factor in this
case was cow's milk protein. It was difficult enough for my colleagues to accept the idea
that protein might help cancer grow, but cow's milk protein? Was I crazy?

THE GRAND FINALE

Thus far we had relied on experiments where we measured only the early indicators of
tumor development, the early cancer-like foci. Now, it was time to do the big study, the one
where we would measure complete tumor formation. We organized a very large study of
several hundred rats and examined tumor formation over their lifetimes using several
different approaches.

TURNING OFF CANCER

The effects of protein feeding on tumor development were nothing less than spectacular.
Rats generally live for about two years, thus the study was 100 weeks in length. All animals
that were administered aflatoxin and fed the regular 20% levels of casein either were dead
or near death from liver tumors at 100 weeks. All animals administered the same level of
aflatoxin but fed the low 5% protein diet were alive, active and thrifty, with sleek hair coats
at 100 weeks. This was a virtual 100 score, something almost never seen in research and
almost identical to the original research in India. In this same experiment, we switched the
diets of some rats at either forty or sixty weeks, to again investigate the reversibility of
cancer promotion. Animals switched from a high-protein to a low-protein diet had
significantly less tumor growth (35°-40% less!) than animals fed a high protein diet.

Animals switched from a low-protein diet to a high-protein

117
diet halfway through their lifetime started growing tumors again. These findings on full-
blown tumors confirmed our earlier findings using foci. Namely, nutritional manipulation
can turn cancer "on" and "off". We also measured early foci in these "lifetime" studies to see
if their response to dietary protein was similar to that for tumor response. The
correspondence between foci growth and tumor growth could not have been greater (Chart
3. 9a). How much more did we need to find out? I would never have dreamed that our
results up to this point would be so incredibly consistent, biologically plausible and
statistically significant. We had fully confirmed the original work from India and had done
it in exceptional depth. Let there be no doubt: cow's milk protein is an exceptionally potent
cancer promoter in rats dosed with aflatoxin. The fact that this promotion effect occurs at
dietary protein levels 00-20%) commonly used both in rodents and humans makes it
especially tantalizing-and provocative.72

It is because of its similarity with the modern human body, at least in terms of metabolism, that
the mice were selected as lab subjects in many experiments, to their misfortune. In the above-
mentioned book, many more similar scientific data are given, which are not just indicatives of
mice, but of people's statistics also, about the connection between the consumption of animal
protein and the occurrence of various diseases in humans. Here are a couple of fragments from
several other very interesting works.

«Here we analysed 9.2 million single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in each of 8,214
Mexicans and other Latin Americans: 3,848 with type 2 diabetes and 4,366 non-diabetic
controls. In addition to replicating previous findings, we identified a novel locus associated
with type 2 diabetes at genome-wide significance spanning the solute carriers SLC16A11
and SLC16A13. [..]The risk haplotype carries four amino acid substitutions, all in
SLC16A11; it is present at 50% frequency in Native American samples and 10% in
east Asian, but is rare in European and African samples. Analysis of an archaic
genome sequence indicated that the risk haplotype introgressed into modern

72
“ The China Study” – Colin T. Campbell, Thomas Campbell, p. 58-62.

118
humans via admixture with Neanderthals».73

“We discovered and replicated associations of Neandertal alleles with neurological,

psychiatric, immunological, and dermatological phenotypes. Neandertal alleles together
explained a significant fraction of the variation in risk for depression and skin
lesions resulting from sun exposure (actinic keratosis), and individual Neandertal
alleles were significantly associated with specific human phenotypes, including hyper
coagulation and tobacco use”.74

Firstly, we need to stop at one point, which is used by many, but not always by its intended
purpose. Such concepts as hereditary diseases and hereditary predisposition to diseases are a
concrete consequence of the way of life, and not a fixed something in some kind of genetic
code that is incomprehensible, but it is so. Let's clarify this.

If the ancestors of a certain individual, during the last thousand years used alcohol,
this individual will have a predisposition to diseases of the liver, kidneys, mental
disorders, etc.

Why? Because alcohol (ethanol) is detrimental to the life of the cell, on one side causing
hypoxia (oxygen starvation) and dehydration, resulting in cell death. The first damage is taken
by the liver and brain cells. It is easy to imagine what this means for an adult organism, and
even more so for a fetus in development - DNA mutation - and fixing new variations (errors in
the code) that encode in the offspring an inferiorly functioning organ, like the liver and brain.
That's, generally, the whole science of hereditary diseases.

Moving on, for a more consistent picture, we bring again a fragment from above:

"..a few Neanderthal alleles were significantly associated with specific human phenotypes,
including hypercoagulable blood (supercoagulation of blood - dense blood) .."

Ask any doctor, anyone who is taken to hospital with any pathology, has a dirty and dense, in
varying degrees, blood. Hypercoagulability of blood is a sign of a critical state of health.

What is the cause of dense blood?

This question can be generally answered, in two words. In the case of man, this cause is
animal protein. Let us explain this fact. Bricks from which a house is built and then repaired,
under the name "human body", are called amino acids. Any protein, whether it is of plant or

73
Sequence variants in SLC16A11 are a common risk factor for type 2 diabetes in Mexico, Sigma, 2013.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12828
74
The phenotypic legacy of admixture between modern humans and Neandertals, Corinne N. Simonti,2016.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6274/737

119
animal origin, that enters the stomach, begins to split by action of enzymes (tools for separating
bricks) into amino acids, and this process continues as it passes through the entire
gastrointestinal tract, so that later this mass is sucked into blood stream, and delivered to the
liver, and from there already and to other organs and parts of the body.

The main idea here is this: Protein is one large and long chain woven of amino acids. The
longer the chain, the more difficult is turns out and the longer it takes, to separate the bricks
from this chain. All the enzyme base that exists in human organisms, is NOT ENOUGH for
processing such a complex and long chain as animal protein. Vegetable protein, on the other
hand, is much simpler and shorter, and as a result, it is easier to digest and split into separate
amino acid bricks. And when this complex animal protein is also subjected to a temperature
treatment (cooked), the protein coagulates (after 72 Celsius degrees) and this mass is
practically very difficult to restore, in order to use the bricks from it (at least in the body of a
modern person - which is primarily a sapiens).

In the end, what do we have? Raw vegetable protein, is completely broken down and absorbed
into the bloodstream already as amino-acid bricks, which freely move in the right direction. A
crude animal protein, only partially broken down, enters the bloodstream, and the cells of the
body's immune system, recognize the alien protein as an extraneous, dangerous thing, and
attack these partial or even almost whole chains of animal protein. The share of unsplit chains
grows, if the animal protein undergoes a temperature treatment (not only meat, but also dairy
products, eggs, fish, etc.). There happens the so-called antigen-antibody reaction. As a result,
the cells of the immune system, attacking these foreign chains of animal protein, die with them,
and both turn into a mucus-like mass that makes the blood thick and viscous, full of debris,
which is a favorable environment for the development of pathogenic organisms. This all
happens, precisely because our body is not adapted for the processing of complex
animal protein.

A natural source of protein for our body, which is easily processed by it, as for all other
mammals that are not predators, is vegetal protein. (At least for those in which the genes
encoding metabolic functions are inherited from Sapiens, or from forest type hominids)

Of course, it is very likely that representatives of the Predinar type mostly ate plant foods that
were subjected to temperature treatment. In the strength of several factors, such as the ability
to secrete enzymes and digestive juices that are capable of processing vegetal foods that have
undergone a temperature treatment, such as tubers, for example, then it would result that the
metabolism of Predinar man, very likely, proceeded at a different rate and provided a relatively
safe existence on this type of nutrition.
Where did the Neanderthal diseases come from? Let us recall the already established fact that
the Neanderthal man was a hybrid between forest hominids and Predinar, with a few share of
genes of Sapiens. Even assuming that most of the genes of late, classical Neanderthals were
genes inherited from Predinar, there remains a significant part that was made up of the genes
of ancient hominids and Sapiens, both species that were mostly FRUIT-EATERS, ie. ate fruits

120
and other vegetal food. These inherited genes, in addition to encoding some morphological,
externally observed signs, could also encode some physiological signs that corresponded to
varying degrees for the metabolism in the body.

So what?

Such a system may become unstable, in view of the fact that this or that screw is absent, and
in its place there is another one that cannot perform the same function as the original screw
properly, because it has another form and is destined to another function. Over time, the
accumulation of such errors, entails a failure in the machine. That's one of the causes of why
Neanderthals and erectus had plenty different diseases.

But there is one but. Several of the studies of "modern people" from the same era have
revealed that they also fed on animal meat, albeit to a much lesser extent. Firstly, it should be
mentioned that the amount of meat consumed by those people of the modern type was much
lower, than the amount of animal food consumed by Neanderthals. The human body of modern
man can cope and somehow delay the appearance of a pathology, if the amount of animal
protein is not more than 5-10% of the total diet. There will be problems, but not immediately.
In the case of those people, thanks to quality food, clean rain water and air, lack of
electromagnetic radiation and other factors, they could live their lives, in general, without any
problems. Diseases manifested themselves, in the long run, only in old age, and the body in
most cases just worn out faster, and that's all. Let's investigate how the Neanderthals got their
food, and how this affected or could affect their numbers.

Although their bones were thick and dense, they often show signs of fractures that forensic
anthropologists have described as similar to those suffered by rodeo cowboys who ride bulls
and wrestle steers. Europe was populated by many large herbivores, such as ibex, fallow deer,
and mountain gazelle, some of which, e.g., aurochs (wild cattle, the bulls weighing over 2200
lbs), mammoth (16 feet at the shoulder, males over 12 tons), rhinoceros (11 feet long, two
horns), and wild boar (~ 600 lbs, with tusks), were also very dangerous. Putting all these clues
together, Neanderthal men may have surrounded and stealthily crept up on herds under cover
of darkness, then threw or thrust their spears. The resulting pandemonium would have been a
man-to-beast battle of considerable violence.75

75
«Erectus walks amongst us» - R.Fuerle p.342

121
This is due, on the one hand, to the fact that Neanderthals were not able or for any other
reason, did not use throwing spears or similar shells for hunting, but used heavy spears which
could only be used at close range, which meant approaching the victim. To this we must add
that the Neanderthal man lived in small groups of 10-20 individuals. Any experienced hunter will
say, that even a small group, albeit physically strong, the task of approaching at a distance of a
couple of meters, and even from different sides, a large, terrified (or alert) animal (for example
- to a mammoth weighing about 5-10 tons), without a huge danger for oneself, is a task
difficult to perform, requiring a lot of luck, at least in order to stay alive, not mentioning to
conduct a successful hunt. And if we add to this the reduction in the fauna population, then the
things clearly show that such hunters, would have had a hard time. There remains only the
possibility that the main source of meat of large mammals in the diet of Neanderthals who lived
in Europe after the cold snap, occurred either from an occasional kill, or finishing off old or sick
animals that could barely defend themselves or were even immobilized, or by scavenging dead
corpses. Of course, here it is worth mentioning and the possibility of hunting for small mammals
and birds. But it is very difficult to do so in winter, when many animals hide. And if we take into
account the position, diversity and the level of abundance of fauna in Europe after the eruption
of super volcanoes, then the task becomes complicated.
As the data show, some Neanderthals, from time to time, ate not only meat of animals, but also
meat of their own kind.76 77 It is also possible to assume, that some groups of Neanderthals

76
We present 99 new Neandertal remains from the Troisième caverne of Goyet (Belgium) dated to 40,500–45,500
calBP. The remains were identified through a multidisciplinary study that combines morphometrics, taphonomy,
stable isotopes, radiocarbon dating and genetic analyses. The Goyet Neandertal bones show distinctive
anthropogenic modifications, which provides clear evidence for butchery activities as well as four bones having
been used for retouching stone tools. In addition to being the first site to have yielded multiple Neandertal bones
used as retouchers, Goyet not only provides the first unambiguous evidence of Neandertal cannibalism in
Northern Europe, but also highlights considerable diversity in mortuary behavior among the region’s late
Neandertal population in the period immediately preceding their disappearance. - Neandertal cannibalism and
Neandertal bones used as tools in Northern Europe, 2016, Hélène Rougierd

122
made from what was once an emergency case of cannibalism - their daily way of life, at least in
winter, when the lack of meat was significant.

Here are the most noteworthy fragments from one article, to emphasize a few points.

“ Neanderthals who practiced cannibalism may have spread a mad cow-like disease that
weakened and reduced populations, thereby contributing to their extinction, according to a
new theory.

The 100,000-120,000 year-old bones discovered at the cave site of Moula-Guercy near the
west bank of the Rhone river suggests a group of Neanderthals defleshed the bones of at
least six other individuals and then broke the bones apart with a hammer stone and anvil
to remove the marrow and brains.

"Why did a large-brained, intelligent hominid that shared so many traits with us
disappear?"

To resolve that question, Underdown 78 studied a well-documented tribal group, the Fore
of Papua New Guinea, who practiced ritualistic cannibalism and linked that to what could
have happened to the Neanderthals.

Beginning in the early 1900s, anthropologists also began to take note of an affliction
among the Fore named kuru. By the 1960s, kuru reached epidemic levels and killed over
1100 people. Subsequent investigations determined that kuru was related to the Fore's
cannibalistic activities and was a form of transmissible spongiform encephalopathy or TSE.
TSEs, of which mad cow disease or bovine spongiform encephalopathy is one, have been
around for possibly millions of years, Underdown says.

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep29005
77
Scientists have discovered the remains of a group of Neanderthals in northern Spain who were butchered and
eaten by a group of local cannibals, according to research presented at the Royal Society in London.
According to reports in the Sunday Times, Carles Lalueza-Fox of the Institute of Evolutionary Biology in Barcelona
told the Society the slaughtered group included three children aged from two to nine, three teenagers and six
adults. “They appear to have been killed and eaten, with their bones and skulls split open to extract the marrow,
tongue and brains,” he said. Dr Lalueza-Fox said: “I would guess they were killed in winter when food was short.
There is no evidence of any fire so they were eaten raw immediately and every bit of meat was consumed. They
even cut around the mandibles of the jaw to extract the tongues.”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/cannibal-neanderthal-gang-in-northern-spain-ate-12-of-
their-neighbours-raw-scientists-say-8960800.html

78
“A potential role for Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies in Neanderthal extinction” – Simon
Underdown, 2008. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306987708000157

123
TSEs cause brain tissue to take on an almost sponge-like appearance, caused by the
formation of small holes during the development of the disease. The disease's latter stages
often result in severe mental impairment, loss of speech and an inability to move.

How many could the disease kill?

Underdown created a model, based on the kuru findings, to figure out how the spread of
such a disease via cannibalism could reduce a population's size. For example, he calculated
that within a hypothetical group of 15,000 individuals, such a disease could reduce the
population to non-viable levels within 250 years. When added to other pressures, this type
of disease could therefore have wiped out the Neanderthals, Underdown believes.

"TSE's could have thinned the population, reducing numbers and contributing to their
extinction in combination with other factors [such as climate change and the emergence of
modern humans]," he says. Such diseases have very long incubation periods, he says, so
affected individuals may not show symptoms for a very long time.

Similarly, people who eat people with a TSE may not exhibit signs of illness immediately
after eating.

"Neanderthals would have been unlikely to spot any causal relationship between
cannibalism and TSE symptoms," Underdown says.

Modern clinical tests show that medical instruments can carry infectious prions, which
spread TSEs, even after such tools have been sterilised. So, sharing stone tools could
have also spread the disease among Neanderthals, even those that did not practice
cannibalism. “79

As it now became clear, the populations of archanthropes engaged in cannibalism, slowly but
surely, realizing it or not, began to move along a dead-end path leading to nowhere. Behind
them, they led others with whom they contacted, even those who were not cannibals, but
whose immune system was vulnerable enough. Why is that?

PGE is a disease having a fungal nature according to one version, viral according to another,
but in both cases - it needs certain conditions to develop and successfully exist.

One of the most important such conditions is a favorable environment. A favorable

environment for fungal and viral infections is, in our example, "dirty" and dense blood, full of
decay products and any debris that should not be there, in those quantities. Entering such and

«Cannibalism may have killed Neanderthals», Jennifer Viegas, Discovery News, 2008.
79

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/02/29/2176338.htm

124
environment, or into such blood, the fungal infection begins to spread throughout the body, and
find the most suitable conditions for it, in the example of kuru, it is the brain. Thus, having
settled in a new place, it begins development. But due to the fact that the human immune
system, together with other external factors (phytoncides coming from trees and plants, for
example, or introduction into the diet of raw vegetal products), counteracts quite strongly
pathogenic infections, this leading to inhibition of the rapid development of the kuru for several
years.

Let's make a brief summary.

1. The population of Neanderthals was extremely small, ranging from 12 to 15 thousand.

2. They lived in small groups, far from each other.

3. In Europe, the main habitat of Neanderthals, several volcanic eruptions occurred on a huge
scale, in the period of 3-5 thousand years, which provoked a cooling, mass extinction of the
local animals, the meat of which they fed on.

4. Neanderthal people suffered from a number of diseases related directly to their type of
nutrition, from the fact that some part of their genes encoded signs that were incompatible with
this diet.

5. Some groups suffered from kuru disease, which, having entered into an active form, always
ends in a lethal outcome. The symptoms of which are: mental disorders, disfunction of
locomotor functions (inability to move), impaired perception. memory, and speech.

6. Due to the volcanic eruption, the remainder of the Neanderthal population was contaminated
with heavy metals, which aggravated the condition of their organisms.

7. Some of these groups became cannibals and attacked other groups, which undoubtedly
affected their numbers to some extent.

125
 Obviously, not the most favorable state of things, even for the strong Neanderthals. But these
strong Neanderthals, possessed, albeit to a lesser degree, also Sapiens genes. Imagine one
such extreme example. Suppose a Neanderthal was born with all his characteristic signs, but
with a sapiens metabolism or a metabolism of an ancient rainforest type of hominid.

How many years would he have held out on a meat diet? - It seems that not many.

Yes, this is an extreme example, which probably happened very rarely in such proportions, but
partial manifestations could occur quite often, which explains why many of them suffered from
this, or that disease.

How many such cases, in slightly smaller proportions, when the inherited genes that encode
metabolism, the immune system, and the digestive tract were not compatible with inherited
appetite and culinary cravings?

It is very likely that all these factors together, are what led the Neanderthals to perish. It is
also very possible that similar reasons provoked the disappearance of many groups and
varieties of archanthropes, but some of them, nevertheless, have survived long enough to make
their contribution to the emergence of "anatomically modern humans".

Can we learn something from all this, and at least not repeat their mistakes?

Our food, in general, for long already is not natural, the water is far from being clean, cars
poison the air with heavy metals, and electromagnetic radiation from electrical appliances, cell
towers, Wi-Fi, and others, obviously do not work for the health of our organisms. The kinds and
number of varieties of diseases are increasing every year, and more and more sick children are
born. We do not need any eruption of a super volcano. If we follow the same path, we will not
go far, and by trashing the Earth, the water of the seas and oceans, and deforesting, we will
soon have nothing to pass on to the children and grandchildren.

At the end of this book, i want to leave you just one fragment to read. Let everyone look for
meaning in what has been said.

Almost 2,500 years ago, Plato wrote a dialogue between two characters, Socrates and
Glaucon, in which they discuss the future of their cities. Socrates says the cities should be
simple, and the citizens should subsist on barley and wheat, with "relishes" of salt, olives,
cheese and "country fare of boiled onions and cabbage," with desserts of "figs, pease,
beans," roasted myrtle-berries and beechnuts, and wine in moderation. Socrates says,
"And thus, passing their days in tranquility and sound health, they will, in all probability,
live to an advanced age .... " But Glaucon replies that such a diet would only be appropriate
for "a community of swine," and that the citizens should live "in a civilized manner." He
continues, "They ought to recline on couches ... and have the usual dishes and dessert of a
modem dinner." In other words, the citizens should have the "luxury" of eating meat.
Socrates replies, "if you wish us also to contemplate a city that is suffering from
inflammation.... We shall also need great quantities of all kinds of cattle for those who may
wish to eat them, shall we not?" Glaucon says, "Of course we shall." Socrates then says,
"Then shall we not experience the need of medical men also to a much greater extent

126
under this than under the former regime?" Glaucon can't deny it. "Yes, indeed," he says.
Socrates goes on to say that this luxurious city will be short of land because of the extra
acreage required to raise animals for food. This shortage will lead the citizens to take land
from others, which could precipitate violence and war, thus a need for justice.
Furthermore, Socrates writes, "when dissoluteness and diseases abound in a city, are not
law courts and surgeries opened in abundance, and do not Law and Physic begin to hold
their heads high, when numbers even of well-born persons devote themselves with
eagerness to these professions?" In other words, in this luxurious city of sickness and
disease, lawyers and doctors will become the norm.
…

- Yes, I said, now I understand: the question which you would have me consider is, not only
how a State, but how a luxurious State is created; and possibly there is no harm in this, for
in such a State we shall be more likely to see how justice and injustice originate. In my
opinion the true and healthy constitution of the State is the one which I have described. But
if you wish also to see a State at fever heat, I have no objection. For I suspect that many will
not be satisfied with the simpler way of way. They will be for adding sofas, and tables, and
other furniture; also dainties, and perfumes, and incense, and courtesans, and cakes, all
these not of one sort only, but in every variety; we must go beyond the necessaries of which
I was at first speaking, such as houses, and clothes, and shoes: the arts of the painter and
the embroiderer will have to be set in motion, and gold and ivory and all sorts of materials
must be procured.

-True, he said.

-Then we must enlarge our borders; for the original healthy State is no longer sufficient.
Now will the city have to fill and swell with a multitude of callings which are not required
by any natural want; such as the whole tribe of hunters and actors, of whom one large class
have to do with forms and colours; another will be the votaries of music --poets and their
attendant train of rhapsodists, players, dancers, contractors; also makers of divers kinds of
articles, including women's dresses. And we shall want more servants. Will not tutors be
also in request, and nurses wet and dry, tirewomen and barbers, as well as confectioners
and cooks; and swineherds, too, who were not needed and therefore had no place in the
former edition of our State, but are needed now? They must not be forgotten: and there will
be animals of many other kinds, if people eat them.

- Certainly.

- And living in this way we shall have much greater need of physicians than before?

- Much greater.

- And the country which was enough to support the original inhabitants will be too small
now, and not enough?

- Quite true.
127
- Then a slice of our neighbours' land will be wanted by us for pasture and tillage, and they
will want a slice of ours, if, like ourselves, they exceed the limit of necessity, and give
themselves up to the unlimited accumulation of wealth?

- That, Socrates, will be inevitable.

- And so we shall go to war, Glaucon. Shall we not?

- Most certainly, he replied. 80

They say that different people, with different ways of life and views of the world, can be united
only in very rare cases, when something very significant is in the middle.
Despite the fact that the diversity of modern people is great, how great and the distinction in
their cultures, languages and everyday life is, it is believed that this goal is achievable.

Look around, for this is what we leave to our children and grandchildren.

Would you like to be born in such a world, as it is now?

To fix this, there is no need for any grandiose deeds. Plant a tree or a flower. Clean a well.
Clean up after yourself. Love animals. Do not throw garbage anywhere, and teach others do the
same. The day begins with a good thought, and a good thought will attract a good future. Then
the world will be transformed.

If not for yourself, then at least for those who have already been born or for those who still
have to be born. Perhaps it will not bring you anything tangible in person, except for the pure
air to breathe, and clean water and food to cherish, but for someone, these simple things, will
turn out to be a real gift.

If you liked this book, and want to share your impression, ideas, leave commentaries, or
constructive critics, there is the possibility to communicate via e-mail : [email protected]

Valerii Orevich

80
T. Campbell, Colin Campbell “ The China Study” and Plato’s dialogues “Republic”, book II.

128