Friday, September 19, 2014

Anthropological 'Epiphany'

Anthropological 'Epiphany' (or
® 2010Dale Alan Bryant
  I was fortunate enough to have had what I can only call an anthropological "epiphany", early yesterday morning, around 2:00AM; it doesn't take much to amuse me, folks! I have feverishly searched for an answer to two questions in particular, regarding human origins, for just over two years now. My suspicions were validated when I recently found the answers - but I’m keeping it to myself for now...
  On a related note, I am fuming to have recently discovered that the Boston Museum of Science, as part of its Human Origins exhibit, has compromised the truth, apparently to cultivate inaccurate, "politically correct" propaganda regarding the extant subspecies of Homo sapiens in their present incarnation. The Museum seems to be refusing to recognize individuality in humanity, any further than genus (Homo) and species (sapiens). They state that the topic is 'controversial' - but that controversy is political, not taxonomic. In essence, their opinion is that, Man does not break down into subspecies, or, varieties (in human taxonomy, varieties are races). Not only is their propaganda wrong, but it is an insult to intelligence and the senses, as well as to all cultures and races of humanity. The intentional cultivation of mis-information, is, I feel, (because it involves large portions of society) a criminal act.
  It has long been known to Anthropologists and Taxonomists that, no less than three extant subspecies of Homo sapiens exist, according to the order of their descent by natural selection; they are: Negroid, Mongoloid and Caucasoid. These subspecies may include their own varieties, which would include the aboriginal Australian descendants of the African, or, Negroid race and the Native American descendants of the Asian, or, Mongoloid race. Each race (variety), has a unique set of obvious, distinct physical and mental characteristics, such as hair type, cranial shape, temperament, and susceptibility to diseases, such as 'sickle-cell' anemia, being restricted to the Negroid gene pool.
  It sickens me that an institution of their caliber would succumb to pressures from "PC" groups, who insist on a homogeneous society in the name of 'equal rights'. The division of man into subspecies, or races, is the very essence of Darwinian evolution and is due mainly to adaptation to geographical environment, or, climate. These climates, as we can see for ourselves, are in constant flux, and the varieties of Homo sapiens have become sub-species by adaptation through natural selection and the inheritance of favorable characteristics. Here are their taxonomic trinomial names:
Homo sapiens afers (African or, Negroid descent); Homo sapiens asiaticus (Mongoloid descent); Homo sapiens sapiens (Caucasoid descent); Homo sapiens tasmaniatus (Negroid descent) and Homo sapiens americanus (Native American or, Mongoloid descent).
  There's an old analogy regarding common sense that can be applied here: "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck - it's a duck."
  Who do they think they're fooling? Hopefully, this situation with the Museum has been noted elsewhere, particularly in journals like Nature or Science that deal with topics like human-origins.
  If you demand an explanation for all of this - don't shoot the messenger - take it up with God - not me.

P.S. Maybe I ought to shoot a copy of our newsletter, with this article, over to administration at the Smithsonian while in Washington next month--I understand they're in need of an opportunity for a good-natured poke at northeastern academia... Ha!
2010 -Dale Bryant, Homo sapiens chumpis gullibilis

No comments:

Post a Comment