The origin of the Aryan race. Part 6

As we have seen in "Could the Biblical accounts of origins actually be right?! Part 4", "children of God" or "sons of God", was synonymous with "Angels" in the Bible. And based on the next post "Are you a child of "God"? Part 5" it became clear that these original "god(s)" of ancient "myths" were really just "tall guys", associated with the red and blond haired, white skinned race that were the original advanced civilizations of the world. Concluding that all people who have the tall guy's blood type, (O) or more specifically are RH- and O, (O-) are creations or "children of God(s)"

 Here I will get into where these people came from, tracing their blood and RH factor, only found in those from the original Albinos. Like the Gene for the Albinos/ white skin, red/blond hair, and light eyes that I discussed in my first post, scientists are puzzled by the seemingly sudden emergence of the rh negative bloodline. They claim to have no idea how it began but we can clearly trace it back to Europe, about 25,000-35,000 years ago. . .and earlier in Africa, and in Israel according to some ancient sources.

 It is easy to trace the RH- factor, seeing that it correlates so well with the white-skin Albino mutation, and the O blood type. It is pretty clear both where it is now, and where it's been in the past if we just follow those alone. . . (Here's a tip, if the culture has light skin, the RH- people were there.)

Someone or some small group of "people" seemed to have created the human race by originally manipulating the DNA. (Could some of this be what we know as "junk DNA" that I spoke of in my last post?). This Creation of the "Tall guys" was called Adam in the cultural stories. Eventually we needed an Eve to reproduce after our kind, and soon after, she was cloned and helped not be sterile from using the bone marrow of Adam. More on this in my post: 

The story of creation. . .as seen by an Atheist/evolutionist. Part 2 With these first two were born "sons of men". (To what ends? Well, a Christian song puts it this way "And for thy [God's] pleasure, they are created. . .")

The RH- or O- race of white people who originated at a certain time in the past seem to have been the Neanderthal. As the EARTH was originally "peopled" by ANIMALS like monkeys before it was peopled by man, this fits with evolution perfectly, and the basics of every cultures story of a creation of the first humans. Which should make all religious people happy too!

"Researchers. . . looked at a particular stretch of DNA in the blood type gene in humans, baboons  chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and several species of monkey. Then the scientists compared that stretch of DNA across species on the larger primate family tree. The pattern they saw suggests that the A and B blood groups were around at least 20 million years ago. . ."

Source

The O- which all human life originated with though, only started somewhere around the Neanderthals or Cro magnon we believe. (Estimated to be 40-70,000 years ago.) But if you want to claim the first man [Adam?] as a relative, you must have at least remnants of the blood type he did. As both O and the negative factor would have started from them, you would have had to have O or have it recessive and have the negative RH factor instead. If you don't have either, then you didn't come from a monkey. Or a separate dark unearthly humanoid. . .

As O- is pure, it is impossible for a A or a B blooded monkey man to have produced an O-. So where did the original O- people come from? Could they have bred with anything on earth to have made the O- stay O-? No, because scientists say the RH- factor is not found anywhere on this planet.

Anyone who came from the Tall men's genetic tinkering, would be either in their image (red/blond haired, white skinned, and blue/green/red eyes) or would have O- blood somewhere in their past. (resulting in an o or RH-) Hope I'm not being repetitious, but just driving my point home a little.

I am putting together years of research from many wise scientists here. I am only putting puzzle piece together that they may not have seen. I think this understanding could and should unite creationists and evolutionists. It would also take religion out of the realm of un-provable supernatural, (leading to nothing but fighting) and put it in reality. Helping us see our cultures silly biases in translating the same stories from the same original text, and expanding on and changing it. . .just as we still do with the real story of Saint Nicholas/Santa Clause.

 Archaeologists believe that human life started in Africa, and I believe they are basically right. . .I also believe this ties into the ancient texts. . . when you take out some silly religious preconceived notions.  It is believed by most scientists that the beginning of human life is equated with monkeys though, whereas I think what we see of monkeys today shows that all pre-humans were just plain old monkeys. Or a splicing in of a few select genes to the primate here, the homo Erectus.

 These primates may love their families, use rock tools to crack open food, and hunt for food in groups, but they are not human. And though they are famous for tribal warfare, they are basically vegetarians. As the studies of the A and B blood types show a vegetarian diet for all the primates, as opposed to the meat eating O from the Neanderthal, so A and B blood types personalities also highly correlate with monkeys. So it is not surprising that the A and B blood has been around for 20 million years, just like the world also shows to be very old.

We could conclude that the monkeys were around long before the "Aryan race" appeared. Which seems to fit with the archaeological evidence. As stated by one evolutionist site:

"People [that they think were not just monkeys] evidently lived in small hunting, gathering, and scavenging bands that rarely exceeded a few dozen individuals. [Sounds like monkey troups to me] Life expectancy was typically 30 years or less, often much less."

Source

Now I researched Monkeys:

"Monkeys in the wild live between 20 and 25 yrs. However, in captivity they can live into their 40s!" 

Source

What about the age of the first actual human acting and looking people, the Neanderthals/ Cro Magnon man?

  
"Recent analysis. . . of human teeth from Upper Paleolithic sites has shown that beginning around 30,000 years ago there was a sharp rise in the number of people who were over 30 years old. They were living significantly longer on average. . .a 4-fold increase in the number of grandparents."
Source

It seems that just plain monkeys were pretty obviously on earth before man, with no transitional forms as shown by the blood type and life expectancy. So where did man come from?

Interestingly, the word "human" is from the Latin humanus, the adjectival form of homo. The Latin "homo" derives from the Indo-European root *dhghem, or "earth". Could the first man Adam, really have been made from the "dust" of the stars, like they say is true of every life, and yet more specifically, dust from another world or the remains of one from it? That may be one way to look at it, but as the word is only presumed to be earth because of the red clay, and the name meaning red, I purpose that the meaning was speaking less of the ground, or even of the color of his skin, as some suggest, but of the color of his hair! As we know that the Neanderthal had red hair, and white skin, this seems the likeliest possibility to me.

The beginning of man was apparently a new type of genetically modified creation, in the likeness of "god" the tall men. (But according to the ancients, not giants like the "Angels" sons.) They grew alongside the original eternal, or long living  "tall men" who were seen as god(s). Their ancient civilizations may have been destroyed by a comet that apparently hit in the past.  This could have caused an axis shift 12,900 years ago, melting the poles, and causing tidal waves as well as flooding globally, being called later the end of the ice age.

 The technology of the ancient "tall men" apparently saw this comet coming though, and they built ships for themselves, and those of their creation whom they wanted to live. If the ancient stories of Noah in many cultures can be taken at face value. . .

 After that disaster, they would have wisely made their homes on mountains, instead of by water. . .or so one could surmise by all the ancient texts.

 We have examples of this before and after life of the gods in "mythology". The "Sons of the Highest" of Atlantis were described as the typical red and blond haired gods. Their coastal Atlantis was wiped out with the rise in the oceans. Evidence is coming out that remains of Atlantis may have actually been found, right where it should have been. . . 

Source

Plato first described it about 2,600 years ago in one of his late dialogues. He said the city was located near the “pillars of Hercules,” which classical scholars say is the Strait of Gibraltar.[Between Spain and Morocco] Check out the geography below.

Plato said Atlantis “in a single day and night... disappeared into the depths of the sea.” At the end of last Ice Age sea levels were nearly 400 feet lower than present day levels. Once the waters began to rise, they rose swiftly.

After being wiped out by the rising water after the ice age, would the Atlanteans not have wisely moved to higher ground. . .like a mountain, or the highest place in the area? High places and mountains were said to be the places of the gods in all the ancient cultures. The Greek gods, and the God of the Israelites being the most notorious. Even Jerusalem was described as "the city of our God" by the Jews, and it was the highest place around, set on a hill. Mount Zion was either symbolic of Jerusalem, or the other way around it seems.

Some verses that talk of this mountain of the Christian/Jewish god:

"But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God [tall men], the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels [tall men] in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the first-born [creation]who are enrolled in heaven. . ."

(Hebrews 12:22-24 RSV)

"Walk about Zion, and go round about her: tell the towers thereof. Mark ye well her bulwarks, consider her palaces; that ye may tell [it] to the generation following."Psalms 48:1-13

“But in the last days it shall come to pass, [that] the mountain of the house of the LORD shall be established in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall flow unto it. And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. And he shall judge among many people, and rebuke strong nations afar off; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. . . and the LORD shall reign over them in mount Zion from henceforth, even for ever.”

Micah 4:1-7

This mountain was not for just anyone apparently. Only Moses was said to be allowed on the Mountain. To quote the Bible:

"if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned, or thrust through with a dart: And so terrible was the sight, [that] Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake:) But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels. . ."Heb. 12:20-22

Moses said to the LORD, "The people cannot come up Mount Sinai, because you yourself warned us, 'Put limits around the mountain and set it apart as holy.'"

Exodus 19:23

No one is to come with you or be seen anywhere on the mountain; not even the flocks and herds may graze in front of the mountain."

Exodus 34:3

You have not come to a physical mountain, to a place of flaming fire, darkness, gloom, and whirlwind, as the Israelites did at Mount Sinai.

Heb. 12:18

 On the morning of the third day there was thunder and lightning, with a thick cloud over the mountain, and a very loud trumpet blast. Everyone in the camp trembled.

Exodus 19:16

 Mount Sinai was covered with smoke, because the LORD descended on it in fire. The smoke billowed up from it like smoke from a furnace, the whole mountain trembled violently,

Exodus 19:18

Following the gods may be impossible if they are:

1.eternal (questionable)

2.very old, as they would appear as an ape because of how certain bones in the face continue to grow with age.

3. moved on to another planet or underground. . .

4. all died and have been buried with Atlantis

(Update: thankfully, a new species has been found that fits the bill of "God" being larger then Neanderthal, but looking like them, and  having bred with them at the same time they appeared. . .also having an untraceable genealogy on earth. . .the Denisovan.)

However, following those mortals they made in their image ought to be easy, because we can follow the RH- blood. The highest accounts of the RH- are found in a few groups:

1.Europeans

 We know that Europeans have this mutation and the Rh-, and that there is a basic location of either it's apparent origin, or a place where most of the RH-'s are , or the people with the purest RH- blood line eventually settled. That area is called: The Basque region.

So, the next group that we can say that the RH- blood comes from is actually probably the origin of the last.

2. The Basque people

Two facts set the Basque peoples apart: (1)  Their language is unlike any other European language, and different then any known language in the world. Some do believe it was the original language of the world!

 (2) The Basques have the highest recorded level of Rh-negative blood in the world now (roughly twice that of most Europeans). The Basque people of Euskadi, Ireland, Scotland and the Norwegian islands have a high concentration of RH-, but the most distinctive members of the European branch of the human tree are the Basques of France and Spain. have a greater than 50 percent concentration of the RH negative gene. The frequency decreases in relation to the distance from the Basque region into the rest of the world. Genetic mapping helps to show that a mutation from RH positive to RH negative occurred somewhere in the Basque area of Europe maybe as much as 40,000 years ago. Not surprisingly, the Basque people also have a higher incidence of Type O- blood.

Basque sailors like Magellan were among the first Europeans to reach North America. A great many early European settlers in Canada and the United States were of Basque origin.

 Basques are a completely separate and distinct race whose origins are shrouded in mystery. The Basques had light complexion skin, blue or gray eyes, and blondish hair. These characteristics still persist in a large number of present day inhabitants of the islands. . 

Some probable technological feats of the Basques or their ancestors are:

• Stonehenge and similar megalithic structures. 
• Regular visits to North America long before Columbus to fish and to trade for beaver skins. (Recently archaeologists have unearthed British customs records showing large Basque imports of beaver pelts from 1380-1433.)
•  The invention of a sophisticated navigational device called an "abacus." 

source

"Fairly recent genetic studies. . . now suggest that the Basques originated in eastern Africa 50,000 years ago. This coincides with the tools we've found in Africa."

So going on the Rh- factor's high prevalence, the O blood type, and the location they were in, one could presume these people were some of the creations of the original white man or men. Could the ancestors of the Basque people, have been the original colony of white man on earth? I will go on to show you how they not only are, but they were so pure likely because of a connection with a genetically pure "son of God". . .

 The Basque people are believed to be direct descendants of the Neanderthals (and Cro magnon), because Western Europe is the Neanderthal's home areas, and the  O blood type (originating in the o-) shows us that the Neanderthals looked basically European. "One interesting facet of Neanderthals, is that they are believed to have had reddish hair and light skins. So red hair may be another marker of part-Neanderthal ancestry."

"After studying the genomes sequences of five modern humans from around the world - from China, France, Papua New Guinea, southern Africa and Western Africa - It was determined that the Neanderthal genome sequence proved slightly more similar to those of non-Africans than other groups." Source 

Even though they were one of the first men, who came out of Africa? You mean, they might not be black? Actually, it is pretty conclusive that they aren't black, and that they had red hair.

So if the Europeans came from the Basques and the Basques came from the Neanderthals, then could  the Neanderthals be the original Adam and Eve? Lets trace their blood and ancestry.

3.The Neanderthals.

"The Neanderthal emerged between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago,[though this ranges greatly I've found] give or take, in the early and middle Paleolithic era. Neanderthals were more muscular than the later Homo sapiens, and their skulls were flatter,[elongated?]. . . and pronounced ridges on the forehead. They were also capable of speech, but recent physiological discoveries indicate that their voices were high pitched and nasal, not the baritone grunts we normally associate with cavemen. "

" The Neanderthal's Cranial capacity equaled or surpassed that of modern humans, though their braincases were long, low, and wide and flattened behind. Their faces had heavy brow ridges, wider noses, large teeth, and small cheekbones. The chest was broad, and the limbs were heavy, with large feet and hands."

There seems to be a lot of intentional misleading about these people, because of the thought that they must be related to the monkeys, coming from Africa, with those black people all the way back to the pharaohs and all. . . They are genetically not at all closely related though! There are many differences in the Neanderthals and monkeys, so here is some info on them.

"Neanderthals intentionally buried their dead, both individually and in groups, and they also cared for sick or injured individuals. Evidence of ritualistic treatment of animals, which is sometimes found with their skeletons, may indicate that they practiced a primitive form of religion." (Or were they just the first hunters or meat eaters?. . .)

"The old concept of Neanderthals being brutish, primitive people has receded in the light of modern studies. Instead, with their powerful, tough physiques and their large brain size (above the modern average), as well as increasing evidence of cultural and artistic achievements, some of us may become quite proud of our Neanderthal ancestry!"

"They found that two Neanderthal specimens from Spain probably had the O blood type. . . Though the O allele was likely to have already appeared before the split between humans and Neanderthals, it could also have arisen in the Neanderthal genome via gene from modern humans."

"On average, Neanderthal mtDNA genomes differ from each other by 20.4 bases and are only 1/3 as diverse as modern humans." [They didn't get out much I guess, and so interbreeding wasn't their thing.]

                                               







Map showing the area that the Neanderthals were found to frequent or have access to according to the Smithsonian. . . (Something tells me they had boats. . .)

"They also found that the effective population size of the Neanderthals was small."

"Since the Neanderthal DNA was equally related to that of the modern samples from France, China and Papua New Guinea, admixture between moderns and Neanderthals must have occurred before the Eurasian populations split off from each other. Remains of both modern humans and Neanderthals dating to around 100,000 years ago have been found in the Middle East. A few interbreeding events during this period could have produced the results found in this study."

"The similarities between modern Europeans and Neanderthals, which would be expected if Neanderthals and modern humans interbred while in Europe, could have been lost due to gene flow between modern humans from different regions."

"The gene flow from the Neanderthals is "14% archaic-modern admixture in European and American populations, and 1.5% admixture in East Asian populations. . ."

"Interbreeding between archaic [Neanderthals] and moderns [humans of today] may have involved different species."

Source the Smithsonian

 "The forerunners of Neanderthal humanoids may date to some 100,000 to 200,000 years ago. Evidence from a few sites now clearly indicate that Neanderthals coexisted for several thousand years with an earlier species: Modern Humans; who arrived in Europe at about 45,000 B.C.

"Modern man though first shows up about 400,000 years ago, and is much older than the Neanderthal!" "Some skull fragments found in France are of that age, but they have characteristics more like modern man. And so it may be, that this is where we see the first evidence of modern man; cross-breeding with. . . Homo-Erectus - who still existed as late as 300,000 B.C. Thus producing the hybrid "Neanderthal" or their cousin Cro-Magon man." (These last two species actually overlapped in Europe for a few thousand years.)

So now we have The Europeans coming from the Basques, coming from the Neanderthals, who came from an even more advanced "modern man".
Source
4. Cro-Magnon man

" Cro-Magnons are not a separate species from modern man. In fact, they’re the earliest known European example of our species and are actually modern in every anatomical respect. They did, however, have somewhat broader faces, a bit more muscle, and a slightly larger brain."

 "Cro-Magnon man used tools, spoke and probably sang, made weapons, lived in huts, wove cloth, wore skins, made jewelry, used burial rituals, made cave paintings, and even came up with a calendar. Specimens have since been found outside Europe, including in the Middle East."
Source

 "The Cro-Magnon people increased their food supply by developing coordinated group hunting techniques for the killing of large herd animals, especially in the river valleys of Western Europe and the plains of Central and Eastern Europe.  They also developed new specialized hunting weapons.  The art of spear hunting was revolutionized by the invention of the spear thrower. Spear throwers may have been made as early as 25,000 years ago in North Africa.  Whether the European Cro-Magnon people independently invented this technology later or acquired it from North Africa is not known."

Source

"Residues of animal skin pants, shirts, and shoes have been found in a 22,000 year old Cro-Magnon grave . . .  Wild flax fibers from 34,000 year old thread or twine have been found at a cave site. . .  Some of these fibers appear to have been dyed black, gray, turquoise, and/or pink.  The fibers were twisted, suggesting that they had been used to make thread, string, or rope."

Over 150 Western European caves have been found with these ice age paintings on their walls. 

Cave art from Lascaux, France (left and right) and Altamira, Spain (center)

 "The Cro-magnon people then immigrated to Central Asia where they lived for some 10,000 years before passing through the Middle East and finally settling in the Pyrenees,  [a range of mountains in southwest Europe]. . . they also share a strong genetic relationship to the Celts of Ireland, Wales, and Cornwall."

Source

"The Cro-Magnon was found at the Jebel Qafzeh and Skhul sites in what is now Israel. The inescapable logical conclusion, is that Cro-Magnon is the product of Modern man cross-breeding with Neanderthal."

There is some confusion about the first advanced man, but it was probably Cro Magnon. From what I can tell, it was not a separate species from the Neanderthal at all and the previous Homeo erectus was a much more primitive ape.

"The taxonomy (the naming and assignment of species) of Homo erectus is controversial. Some scholars maintain that important differences exist between the Asian and African representatives of this species. In particular, these scientists contend that features [like] large teeth. . . and [the] massiveness of the neurocranium (the part of the skull that covers and protects the brain) and face—are found only in Asian H. erectus fossils. However, as other scholars argue, many of these traits are also found in. . . H. erectus fossils in Africa, suggesting that the entire sample constitutes a single species, Homo erectus. The Homo erectus braincase is also very long relative to its height, giving the skull a football-shape when viewed from the side. . .[sounds kind of alien-like to me. . .] the browridges were massively built and continuous across the face. The only notable difference is that the postcranial remains of Homo erectus are generally thicker and more massively-built than those of H. sapiens. . ."


"Recent research, however, suggests that key fossils assigned to Homo erectus were much shorter than previously thought and argues that modern human stature may not have been present in Homo erectus. recent fossil finds in Kenya suggest that Homo erectus was quite variable in size and that sexual dimorphism (differences between males and females within a species) may have been greater than previously believed.  The ability of Homo erectus to colonize land outside of Africa was also largely dependent on the new technology this species invented to deal with its surroundings. Homo erectus was the first species to actively control fire; the first good evidence for controlled fire is from a Homo erectus site in Israel."


"H. erectus made hand axes everywhere they could find the appropriate kind of stone to make them, and there was no stylistic variation. Hand axes in the Middle East look like hand axes in Europe and Africa. There seemed be little cultural variation."


  Many scholars believe that Homo erectus evolved from Homo habilis, probably in East Africa. Recent finds in Kenya, however, have increased the temporal range of Homo habilis, suggesting that the two species overlapped greatly in time and causing some scientists to question the direct linkage between Homo habilis and Homo erectus. [They are one and the same in other words.]
Source

" Homo erectus evolved in Africa. Homo erectus would bear a striking resemblance to modern humans" [But based on the blood, were completely dark and ape like.]

Homo habilis, Homo ergaster and numerous others have recently been all coined Homo erectus because of the variety within one family found in a cave. If found separately they would have been classified much differently . The truth is, Homo habilis ,Homo ergaster Homo Erectus, Cro-magnon, and a newly found Denisovan lived with Neanderthal, who likewise lived alongside "modern man" . [Or maybe it was the interbreeding with the Neanderthal that made the modern man? Maybe they were within the range of acceptable diversity, considering they were mostly a mix from two or sometimes three of them. . .?]

Comparison of Neanderthal and modern human DNA [that came from them and the genetically manipulated ape] suggests that the two lineages diverged from a common ancestor. . .[who would have been called "God"]

source

Sadly, history rarely gives the same names to people or species in their day as we do looking back. Formal names, versus titles, are confusing enough, but going back far enough, the people often didn't even have marked graves, or if they did, the markers were long since destroyed. So, I will borrow from the studies of many scientists, historians and Archaeologist as well as geneticists in my next post, to show for one, how The white royals of history were all "sons of the tall men" in Part 7