Hybridization Hypothesis – the origin of Australian aboriginals

I

The mixed type - African/Denisovan type

The unmixed - 100% African type

The unmixed - 100% Denisovan type

Most of the mainstream archeologists and evolutionary anthropologists believe that the Australian aboriginals descended from a group of Homo sapiens, who were said to have left Africa about 40,000-70,000 years ago for Australia. However, in my proposed hybridization theory, I am suggesting that the Australian aboriginals are largely a product of interbreeding between the Homo sapiens and the Homo Denisovans (subspecies of Homo sapiens, native to the Australian sub-continent).

What am I really trying to convey? I am proposing that the proto-inhabitants of the Australian sub-continent were Homo Denisovans who were well adapted to that environment. However, about 40,000-70,000 years ago, a group of Homo sapiens left Africa and journeyed into Australian sub-continent where they encountered Homo Denisovans and interbred with them to survive in an unfamiliar environment. Of course, in most cases of interbreeding, not everyone in the population is (un)fortunate enough to be absorbed into the admixture – some remain unmixed. Similarly, in the case of the Australian aboriginals, some of them are a product of the admixture between the African immigrants (i.e. Homo sapiens) and the natives (i.e. Homo Denisovans), but a number of them are not mixed at all – that is, a number of them are descendants of either the pure-bred Homo sapiens or Denisovans.

Today, the “hybrid genotype and phenotype” are well preserved amongst the aboriginals in main land Australia, but to a lesser degree in West Papua and Solomon Island. The pure Denisovans’ genotype and phenotype are well preserved amongst the Papua New Guineans; whereas, the pure Homo sapiens’ genotype and phenotype are well preserved amongst the Solomon and Vanuatu Islanders, but to a lesser degree amongst the Papua New Guineans. In fact, in one of the Solomon Islanders' folklores that I read, it says that the Solomon Islanders’ progenitors migrated from Tanzania (East Africa) 40,000-60,000 years ago, and many of their elders today testify to the truth of this East-African migration theory.

To further buttress my hypothesis, let me refer you to an article published by Carl Zimmer in the Discover magazine this year (“Intebreeding with Neandethals,” March 04, 2013). In it, Carl says: “the Denisovan genes were closest to the Neanderthals, but the genome had many mutations not found in either humans or Neanderthals. Denisovan ancestors apparently had diverged from the ancestors of Neanderthals somewhat more recently than the split between Neanderthals and modern human beings. It is possible that their common ancestor emigrated from Africa many hundreds of thousands of years ago. The ancestors of Neanderthals headed north....The Denisovans’ ancestors, meanwhile, headed east and survived long enough to at least leave that pinkie bone in the Siberian cave......Knowing that Neanderthals and humans had interbred, Reich and his colleagues (The Harvard researches) looked carefully for Denisovan DNA in the genomes of living humans. They found it in genomes from two populations, one from New Guinea and another from the nearby island of Bougainville. As much as 5 percent of their DNA came from the vanished Denisovans.” (http://discovermagazine.com/2013/march/14-interbreeding-neanderthals).

The current revelation in my hypothesis and in the Harvard genome research enclosed above is probably just the beginning of a new understanding of our evolution. I hope my hypothesis would enlighten the ideologues who argue vehemently against the “out of Africa migration” with a flawed genome result that links the Australian aboriginals to Asia, not Africa. I have made it clear in my hypothesis that the so-called native people of Australian sub-continent are not racially homogenous. That is, while some of them appear to be 100% Denisovans (i.e. subspecies of Homo sapiens, native to Australian sub-continent and some parts of Asia), some of them are actually genetically and phenotypically100% Homo sapiens (the migrant Africans), and the rest appear to be a mixture of both. So depending on which aboriginal group you include in your genome test, you are bound to come up with different DNA results. 

In conclusion, I must say that the primary focus of my hypothesis at this time is the origin of Australian aboriginals, but the hypothesis can be broadened to include the origin of any racial group.

All these people are native to Australian sub-continent

The Cult of Serapis and the Pagan Origin of "Abrahamic Triad."

The bust of Serapis

The cult of Serapis was rooted in the Ancient Egyptian belief in the Divine father, Osiris (Ausar). Serapis was derived from the combination of two well-known Egyptian gods, Osiris and Apis (Osiris+Apis = Osirapis or Serapis). Technically, the cult of Osiris and Apis predated the Ptolemies (i.e., the Greek dynasty of ancient Egypt - 323-30 BC). But it was the Ptolemaic rulers who fused the two gods into one.

That is, before the creation of Serapis by the Ptolemaic dynasty (the Greeks) of Ancient Egypt, Osiris was the mythological god of the Nile valley who presided over the throne of judgment - The Pharaohs were regarded as the vicar of Osiris on earth. The Ptolemaic rulers, however, changed this traditional arrangement by creating a new god, Serapis, in the exact likeness of the father, Osiris. The only difference was that the Ptolemaic rulers elevated themselves to the status of god/Serapis, and demanded to be worshipped as such – a clear violation of the traditional arrangement in which man, regardless of status, can only be the vicar of god on earth, but not god himself. The traditional thought process was that god could only have one nature, which is divine, not human. 

Osiris, the father, sitting on the throne of Judgment

The Coptic community of Egypt (mostly Hellenized Africans) rejected the Ptolemaic ruler's stance on being one and the same with the newly created father, Serapis. They refused to worship the Ptolemaic rulers as gods. The Ptolemy rulers responded by closing down all the ancient temples of Egypt and in some cases killing and exiling the African priests who opposed them.

The Romans took over the rule of Ancient Egypt from the Greeks (the Ptolemaic rulers) after the Greeks had ruled for nearly 300 years. And it was the Romans, more specifically Emperor Constantine who Christianized Serapis, and made Serapis a creature with dual nature (human and divine). The Coptic Egyptians (Africans) and a handful of Turks and Arabs (hybrid of Turks, Greeks and Africans) in North and North East Africa (now Middle East) rejected the dual nature of Serapis just like their previous ancestors. They maintained that Serapis the father could only have one nature which was divine, not human.

All in all, Constantine was successful in making Serapis the Christ (I.e. Iesus Christos) - a creature with dual nature (human and divine). Constantine legacy divided the Roman Empire into two philosophical camps: the Eastern camp (North Africa, Middle East and Asia) and the Western camp (Western and Central Europe) - See the Crusade. The Eastern camp believed that the created Serapis only had one divine nature like the original father, Osiris, and refused to worship Serapis as the Christ with dual nature. However, the western camp accepted Serapis as the Christ, having dual nature - see the Nicaea council I&II.

Today, the Western camp are the Christians (Dyophysites) and the Eastern camp are the Muslims (Monophysites) – see Allah/Mahommet/One Nature. In other words, Muslims are Monophysite Christians. And Christians are worshippers of Serapis, now called Christ - who our ancestors refused to worship. But we in our ignorance continue to worship a creature dissimilar from the father, a creature nonetheless (Arius - see Arianism), and we continue to suffer in the world because of our ignorance. Wake up!

References:

"The Black Athena" vol.I&II - Martin Bernal****

"Holy Blood Holy Grail" - Richard Leigh et al

"The historical Origin of Islam" - Walter Williams *****

"Christianity before Christ" - John G. Jackson

"The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors" - Kersey Graves

/Ojo o Oyebisi/  - 7/20/13

WAKE UP

I identify, wholeheartedly, with any group of people who portray themselves as the "chosen ones," or better yet, colonized god in their own image. But I refuse to sympathize with people who worship and praise god that is not in their own image, or worse still, a god that has failed to choose them in the first place. I cannot sympathize with them because they refuse to reason logically.

The image of god is high and mighty in our conscious and sub-conscious minds. So if a group of people have managed to be chosen by god or have colonized the image of god; invariably, those godly people are high and mighty in the conscious and sub-conscious minds of those who choose to worship that same god. It is not an accident that the people that have portrayed themselves as the chosen ones and those that have colonized the image of god are the same people who now control the world as a collective. It is called “positive self-fulfilling prophesy.” However, the “tag-alongs” or those who are willingly waiting for the return of the messiah to establish their own relationship with the creator are now the peasants of the world.

Imagine the joy, the confidence, the ego in a little child’s mind looking up and seeing god in his/her own image or looking down into a holy book and reading that his/her people are chosen by God. Now contrast that with another child, who looks up to a godly image that does not resemble him/her or look down to read a holy book that makes no reference to his/her people being chosen by god. In the liberated mind of the first child, the world is his father’s realm, so he/she can do as he/she pleases. However, in the poisoned mind of the second child, the world is a struggle, so he/she looks up to the first child for salvation. The first child is god in the second child’s mind. So, the struggle continues!

I think if you need to subscribe to a deity, you should subscribe to one in your own image. There are some people who would try to validate the three major belief systems we have today by pointing to their Kemetic, Ethiopic and Sumerian origins. I contend that this old and well-known fact should not be used as a point of validation, but rather as a point of rejection. I think it is ludicrous to validate and accept a fallacy just because you can trace its root to your land. The mere fact that these belief systems, in spite of their common origin, are in constant struggle to annihilate each other to the detriment of our civilization speaks volume to their emptiness. After all, if their deity is mighty and powerful as purported in their books, why fight for it - it can fight for itself.

Religion is an effective ideological tool for promoting, through the use of allegorical method, cultural supremacy and political control. As a matter of fact, an effective way to achieve an ideological goal is through the use of allegorical method. The most prominent allegorical method ever formulated by man is that of the eternal struggle between god and devil. Man’s main ideological goal is to feed his ego; so, he associates all that satisfies his ego with god and the opposite with devil. In other words, man creates god in his own image to always support or stand for man’s egocentric agenda. Thus, it is no accident that religious ideology is formulated on the allegorical struggle between god and devil; where, the godly people are rewarded with heaven and the devilish people are banished to hell – it is a control tool.

The current writer finds that the religious texts contain plasma (relating imaginary events as if they were real) and mythos (telling what never happened) but no historia (describing what actually happened). Thus, all the stories in the religious texts are allegories, compiled for the ideological goal of promoting cultural supremacy and political control.