The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Available Books
/
Richard D. Fuerle
Erectus Walks Amongst Us
The evolution of modern humans
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Images
List of Tables
List of Bookmarks
(Republished from Archive.org by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Science • Genre: Science Writing • Tags: Africans, Evolution, out of Africa model 
Hide 16 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Great effort, giving it´s point in time. A generous dose of anticipation. The title is a gem. To me, the referencing other authors/sources is quite lame sometimes, is seems done to adhere to convention, and a gloss of seriousness, what goes for it, in academics.

    • Replies: @Yevardian
  2. Yevardian says:
    @PetrOldSack

    The bulk of his references seem to be regarding university 101 points of general and primate evolution, incidentally.

  3. Interesting. The author raises a lot of interesting facts, points of view, and even value judgments. He is publishing in the face of a religious opposition, an unacknowledged “church” or “faith community” he terms Egalitarianism. It is as good a label as any for the dominant philosophical “faith” governing Occidental civilization, presently. In that sense, it is refreshing to see. This is a challenge that needs to be raised. Superstitious orthodoxy is no friend of science, or even the health of human community and society.

    That said, the author is not strictly publishing a scientific position in this work. This is a work of competing religious/philosophical/sociological nature, embodying value judgments about the facts and science upon which the work expounds. It is a challenge to the reigning orthodoxy, the reigning religious worldview, but it is, nonetheless a competing religion/philosophy. If you want to understand this, just read Chapter 29. The author’s “reasons” are not strictly science; they are philosophy, sentiment, religion and aesthetic preferences. The author would like you to believe that the work is entirely dispassionate science, but this claim is patently not true. The reader will have to come to his own conclusions about the author’s normative judgments, as well as conclusions about the veracity and accuracy of the science, but I personally believe that it is better that these topics were discussed openly, and with as much honesty as possible than see them summarily banished from the arena of human discourse as heresy, anathema, and taboo by the Church of Egalitarianism.

    • Thanks: Ray Caruso
  4. I read this book earlier this year, after finding a link on another web site. While my readings on these topics are not exhaustive, I want to compliment the author for a great job. The book covers a dizzying array of fields and opinions. I agree with the above opinion, that there is a lot of “opinion” in the book. Nonetheless, I found few if any errors of fact in this book. This book is easily the best I’ve ever read about the reality of race and how it impacts our modern world. My only regret is I don’t know how to send a donation to the author, Mr. Fuerle. I was going to buy it on Amazon, where it was listed as “Item under review” but has mysteriously vanished. I wonder why!

    While I’m here, let me put in a plug for a similarly excellent book, Taylor’s Paved with Good Intentions.

  5. Yngvar says:

    In one of the footnotes the author claims that the Neanderthals was; “Named for discoverer Joachim Neumann, who preferred his name in Greek, Neander (“new man”) plus “tal,” which is “valley” in German.”

    This is eyebrow-raisingly wrong, and — I believe — a wink from the author: ‘I’m just an old man who like to tell meandering tall tales.’

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  6. Anonymous[387] • Disclaimer says:

    Deepfriedsammich wrote:

    the author is not strictly publishing a scientific position in this work. This is a work … embodying value judgments … The author would like you to believe that the work is entirely dispassionate science, but this claim is patently not true.

    Uhh, no. I don’t see how the author is attempting to conceal his biases or deceive the reader into believing he’s being 100% dispassionate and value-judgement-less. In fact, he couldn’t be more open that much of what he’s written is his personal opinion. Just read the first paragraph of chapter 1:

    I will not endlessly repeat, “according to the author,” and the reader should realize that deductions and explanations are the author’s opinion, supported by the quotations and citations that are given.

    He says that this is substantially a work of personal opinion in the very first paragraph of the very first chapter. Like … dude.

    If you want to find someone furtively injecting their value judgements into long tracts of pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo then go pick up the latest much-hyped book by the vapid and soporific Yuval Harari.

  7. anon[715] • Disclaimer says:

    Yngvar wrote:

    In one of the footnotes the author claims that the Neanderthals was; “Named for discoverer Joachim Neumann, who preferred his name in Greek, Neander (“new man”) plus “tal,” which is “valley” in German.”

    This is eyebrow-raisingly wrong, and — I believe — a wink from the author: ‘I’m just an old man who like to tell meandering tall tales.’

    The footnote you reference appears in Chapter 2.

    While Fuerle was mistaken here I think you exaggerate the magnitude of the error.

    The Neander valley is, indeed, named after Joachim Neander (Neumann) (1650 – 31 May 1680). And, while it’s true that Joachim Neander (or, rather, his grandfather) changed the family name from “Neumann” to the Graeco-Roman “Neander,” it is wrong that Joachim had personally discovered the Neanderthal remains. Those remains were discovered by laborers in 1856 and at first disregarded before their significance was recognized by Johann Carl Fuhlrott. And, yes, Neanderthals are named after the valley which is named after Joachim Neander whose surname was changed from Neumann.

    Fuerle’s error seems like a rather easy mistake to make and not the kind of error that someone who’s making up elaborate tall tales would have made.

    I’m sure that there are plenty of other such small errors of this kind, not to mention typos, punctuation and and grammatical mistakes, in this book. As I understand it, it is self-published and didn’t go through the normal editorial polishing process where these types of silly mistakes are discovered and corrected. I don’t find, personally, that such errors, in moderate quantity, discredit the author at all. They are to be expected.

    See these links for the details:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joachim_Neander

  8. sarz says:

    … I don’t know how to send a donation to the author, Mr. Fuerle

    He passed away a decade ago. But it would be great if someone could get a good editor to do a readable and coherent work based on Fuerle’s thought.

  9. Anonymous[344] • Disclaimer says:
    @Yngvar

    “This is eyebrow-raisingly wrong”

    Whew, is it ever!! And with mouth firmly wide open. Hence, you may be right about that wink.

  10. Not only do they walk amongst us but they also vote and it looks like they voted for Biden/Kamala.

  11. EH says:

    I haven’t read this since around 2010-12, it’s an excellent book overall, but I seem to recall there were some problems with a few of the numbers or their sources, I believe in the section on genetic distances, though I may be misremembering. That is an area where research has progressed rapidly since the book was published in 2008. I think perhaps the problem I remembered was that the evidence of archaic human DNA in modern humans was hardly known when the book was written.

    I recently found a interesting 2019 paper on the subject that gives a much more complete and accurate human family tree, with not only the Neanderthal but also the Denisovan mixtures in non-Africans, but also the unknown, Erectus-like mixture in Africans, which is dramatically higher in Bantus than Bushmen.

    “Whole-genome sequence analysis of a Pan African set of samples reveals archaic gene flow from an extinct basal population of modern humans into sub-Saharan populations” Comas et.al in Genome Biology volume 20, Article number: 77 (2019) Full text, see esp. fig. 4, the tree, though fig. 3 (effective pop. size vs. time and table 2 (divergence times and archaic mixture %s) are also interesting.

    It appears that the last common ancestor (aside from archaic mixtures) of the Bushmen with the other races was about 200k years back, and for the non-Bushmen races it was about 100k yr., but taking direct archaic mixtures into account, it was more like 500k yr., and counting indirect mixture, 600k yr. or more since the last common ancestor. The Erectus-like 500kya-separated strain had its biggest introgression into the Bantus, about 6%, but more like 2-3% into Bushmen and Pygmies. The Neanderthal mixture in Whites is estimated in the paper as about 4%, as is the Denisovan mixture into the Chinese.

    All the African races, but particularly Bushmen and Pygmies, had much larger population sizes than the non-Africans over the period from ~15 kya to ~50-100 kya.

  12. “I recently found a interesting 2019 paper on the subject that gives a much more complete and accurate human family tree, with not only the Neanderthal but also the Denisovan mixtures in non-Africans, but also the unknown, Erectus-like mixture in Africans, which is dramatically higher in Bantus than Bushmen.”

    I read something about this too – “ghost” DNA showing up in West African populations. It certainly seems plausible.

    Less plausible is Fuerle’s theory in Chapter 26, where he suggests that Africans interbred with Chimpanzees.

  13. According to this book, Chapter 29, it reads:

    Dennis Prager, Jewish radio talk show host, promoting white miscegenation, not Jewish miscegenation.

  14. Thank you, Ron Unz, for featuring this book again. It seems more relevant at present than even a few months ago when you first gave it prominence here.

    The message is clear: sub-Saharan Africans can be classified as a separate and distinct sub-species, homo sapiens africanus. Current news is all it takes to make this even clearer.

    This gives some validation to your long-standing message that the various ethnicities of homo sapiens eurasianensis and their Amerindian cousins are not really the problem, and that human environments, like your neighboring East Palo Alto, improve when they replace homo sapiens africanus.

    What is most commendable is how you have communicated this message without resorting to the insults and bad jokes the rest of us have been tempted to use. People are what they are, and it is not really their fault into what form they are born. The question is how do we all co-exist — or perhaps where do we all belong?

  15. Dan Hayes says:

    In an otherwise laudatory review, Jared Taylor had qualms about the Negro appearing on the book’s cover! Taylor would be embarrassed to show the cover to others. Of course, I had no such qualms.

  16. gregor says:

    This author not only rejects Out-of-Africa, he goes much further and argues that humans descend from Eurasian apes, not African apes. This strikes me as highly implausible.

    1) Fst scores indicate that humans are genetically closest to chimpanzees (and bonobos). Gorillas are a little more distant. Then orangutans are more distant still. If we were descended from Eurasian apes, then you’d expect us to be closer to orangutans, not to African primates. (Current taxomony has orangutans in the same family as humans, Hominidae, but a different sub-family, Ponginae vs Homininae).

    2) Similarly, the pre-hominid fossil record would seem to suggest Africa over Eurasia. The Australopithecines of Africa are far better candidates as predecessors to Homo than Ramapithecus or whatever else in Asia.

    3) The early genetic research on the mitochondrial haplogroups indicated that seemingly all the mitochondrial haplogroups of living people belong to the same tree. Same story with the Y haplogroups. And the earliest lineages are African. This was the main evidence that established the Out-of-Africa theory around the late 80s. The original version of it was that a group of modern humans left Africa around 50,000-60,000 years ago and virtually all Eurasians descend from this group and there was essentially full replacement of all other hominins in Eurasia (e.g., Neanderthals, Homo erectus).

    4) The main alternative theory was the multiregional model advanced most notably by paleoanthropologist Milford Wolpoff (somewhat similar to the older theories of Coon although with more gene flow among the populations). The multiregionalists argued against full replacement on the grounds that hominins had been in Eurasia for around 2 million years (including some fairly modern specimens like those of Skhul and Qafzeh that are more than 50,000 years old) and, in their view, the physical anthropology suggested some regional (read: racial) continuity between these early regional hominins and the corresponding current populations.

    5) Now with better genetic evidence based on sequencing of full genomes and ancient DNA samples, we know that the theory of full replacement was not correct. Eurasians all have a small amount of Neanderthal DNA (1-2%) and some also have Denisovan (up to 8% for Papuans). So Out-of-Africa was wrong on this point. But given that the percentages are not great, it still might be true that the great majority of ancestry of Eurasians is from relatively recent migration out of Africa.

    6) If Homo sapiens were in Eurasia first and then moved into Africa, this would have to have been before the Neanderthal admixture. Otherwise Africans would have Neanderthal DNA like all the Eurasians. I don’t think this really fits. Also the greater genetic diversity within Africa is more consistent with Eurasians leaving from a larger African population vs. an expansion into Africa.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone
Cancel Commenting


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to All Richard D. Fuerle Comments via RSS