Mu, Part 5:

So, we now have a window for the origin of Y-DNYA - 4500kYBP-310000kYBP. However, the earlier part of this range is derived from mutation rates, and the seemingly enormous time (310Mya) seperating human and chimp Yq may be a result of the 1250kYBP 100kb 1q->Yq transposition. Thus we should be cautious, and push back Y-DNYA only as far as necessary - which seems to be 4500kYBP.

In 1976-1978AD, Mary Leakey discovered the Laetoli footprints, which were dated to 3600kYBP. Examination revealed that, while modern, the Laetoli footprints didn't display a modern depth pattern, and the feet were less straight and curved inward like a sickle;

>http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0009769#pone.0009769-Bennett1
>http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0009769.g001
>These results provide us with the earliest direct evidence of kinematically human-like bipedalism currently known, and show that extended limb bipedalism evolved long before the appearance of the genus Homo. Since extended-limb bipedalism is more energetically economical than ape-like bipedalism, energy expenditure was likely an important selection pressure on hominin bipeds by 3.6 Ma

However, compare this to a clubbed foot;

>http://www.massgeneral.org/ortho/assets/images/pediatrics/clubfoot-diagram2.gif
>http://file.scirp.org/Html/4-2100559/aaa2547a-aced-4927-8af0-5cf640da3b8c.jpg

Or metatarsus adductus, also called 'pigeon toe;'

>https://www.humpath.com/spip.php?article6817
>http://www.orthoanswer.org/foot-ankle/metatarsus-adductus/index.html

A metatarsal found at Hadar dated to 3200kYBP was human on all measures;

>http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110210/full/news.2011.85.html
>The finding, published today in Science1, centres on the discovery in Hadar, Ethiopia, of a 3.2 million-year-old fourth metatarsal bone
>At Laetoli, Tanzania, some hominins walked across a bed of wet volcanic ash 3.6 million years ago. "When I saw those footprints being excavated, I thought, gosh, you'd lose these on a modern day beach, they have an arch and a totally human gait," recalls Latimer. However, the movements were so close to human that many palaeontologists doubted they could have possibly belonged to the ancient A. afarensis.  "This work certainly puts a nail in the coffin of that argument," says Latimer
>http://science.sciencemag.org/content/331/6018/750
>https://anthropology.net/2011/02/11/the-arched-metatarsal-of-australopithecus-afarensis/

The estimated height of the hominid that left the Laetoli footprints;

>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laetoli
>length of footprint	21.5 cm 18.5 cm
>reconstructed body-size 1.34-1.56m 1.15-1.34m

Aside from clubfeet, excess fat on the feet could contribute to the vague outline or the foot. The short estimated height allows us to suggest that the Laetoli hominids were highly neotenous - they may have retained the arch-hiding fatpad of the infant into youth;

>http://www.rch.org.au/uploadedFiles/Main/Content/rheumatology/Flat_feet_in_children.pdf
>Children with flat feet do not have an arch while standing. This is normal in nearly all infants and many young children (Figure 1). In infants, the baby fat pad in the foot hides the developing arch. Young children have flat feet because they are loose jointed

And to go with it, a 1420kYBP human metacarpal;

>http://m.pnas.org/content/111/1/121.long
>A newly discovered metacarpal from Kaitio, Kenya, dates to 1.42 Mya
>These questions are driven by the paucity of hand fossils in the hominin fossil record between 800,000 and 1.8 My old, a time interval well documented for the emergence and subsequent proliferation of Acheulian technology (shaped bifacial stone tools
>The earliest-known stone tools are 2.58 My old from Gona, Ethiopia
>http://m.pnas.org/content/111/1/121/F1.expansion.html
>The styloid process appears to be slightly smaller and the capitate-second metacarpal joint slightly less oblique than average in the Middle Pleistocene Atapuerca and the Neandertal samples compared with modern humans, but even so, the morphologies in these groups show substantial overlap with the modern human condition
>In all ways, this bone resembles that of a modern human in overall proportions and morphology
>The bone is long, falling within the upper range of modern human European and African American males
>Most likely, KNM-WT 51260 belonged to a relatively tall individual
>Applying stature regression equations developed for modern human males (32, 33) yields stature estimates of more than 167 cm
>The length of the KNM-WT 51260 styloid is close to the mean value of modern humans
>The KNM-WT 51260 styloid process is unequivocally similar to that of modern humans and Neandertals and not intermediate between that of earlier hominins and later Homo
>However, KNM-WT 51260 falls within the observed ranges for modern humans and Neandertals, both of which overlap considerably
>The earliest evidence of Acheulian tool technology (i.e., shaped bifacial stone tools) occurs at ∼1.75 Mya at the nearby site of Kokiselei 4, West Turkana (35), and at Konso, Ethiopia

The articular length of KNM-WT 51260 is 75mm, which is at the maximum end of the range for human males, and it's styloid length was 4.5mm, which was at the lower end of the range for human males but in the middle for human females. Applying the square cube law, we get the values 134 / 167 = 0.802395209580838 * 0.802395209580838 = 0.643838072358277 * 75 = 48.28785542687077mm, 4.5mm * 0.643838072358277 = 2.897271325612246mm.

An articular length of 48mm only exists among human females, and the styloid length of 2.9mm is at the lower range of both human males and human females. This would be a modern hand, and would fit proportionally on a 1.34m body. These hands are fairly large, and the Laetoli footprints, if we apply the square cube law, are similarly large for a 167cm individual - 167 / 134 = 1.246268656716418 * 1.246268656716418 = 1.553185564713745 * 21.5 = 33.39348964134551cm, or 13.147."

We could also conjecture that the height estimates for the Laetoli hominids are inaccurate - KNM-WT 51260 is estimated to have been 167cm or taller. A 134cm individual would be estimated to have feet 134 / 180 = 0.744444444444444 * 0.744444444444444 = 0.554197530864197 * n smaller than a 180cm individual, which would = 0.554197530864197 * 33.39348964134551 = 18.50658950617282cm. However, 156 / 180 = 0.866666666666667 * 0.866666666666667 = 0.751111111111111 * 33.39348964134551 = 25.0822211083884cm.

Presuming that the 1.34m individual was a child and the 1.56m individual was an adult, to get a foot length of 21.5cm, KNM-WT 51260 would have had to have been 194cm; 156 / 194 = 0.804123711340206 * 0.804123711340206 = 0.646614943139547 * 33.39348964134551 = 21.59272940566969cm.

The 1.34m individual has feet proportional to it's body equivalent to a hypothetical 1.8m individual, and the 1.56m individual equates to a 1.94m individual. However, 134 / 194 = 0.690721649484536 * 0.690721649484536 = 0.477096397066638 * 33.39348964134551 = 15.93191359336805cm, which is 2.068086406631951cm shorter than the observed 18.5cm. If the 18.5cm footprints belonged to a child, we'd expect the feet to be smaller than the 15.9cm estimate due to lack of virilizaton. What this entails is that they would have grown into their feet.

On the other hand, what if their feet were smaller proportionally than modern humans? What if the 21.5cm footprint belonged to a 194cm individual, and 18.5cm footprint belonged to a shorter adult? 18.5 / 21.5 = 0.86046511627907 * 0.86046511627907 = 0.740400216333153 * 21.5 = 15.91860465116279cm. Aside from the hypothesis that they grew into their feet, we can also test if the height estimate was incorrect;

18.5 / 21.5 = 0.86046511627907 * 1.94 = 1.669302325581395m. We can thus imagine a 1.94m male with 21.5cm long feet leading a 1.66m female with 18.5cm long feet through the ash. These heights and measurements are absolutely modern, except for two features - 1; the Laetoli hominids walked in short, pigeon-toed strides; and, 2; the Laetoli hominids had smaller than modern, clubbed feet.

All of this suggests a gracile body, and indeed the KNM-WT 51260 metacarpal is actually thinner and more gracile than the modern average. The Hadar metatarsal was also thinner and more gracile - and, critically, shorter, as this image shows;

>https://boneclones.com/product/set-of-4th-metatarsals-from-human-al-333-160-afarensis-chimpanzee-and-gorilla-KO-390-4MT-SET

However, 400Kya and a large geographic distance means that the hominid finds at Laetoli aren't the same individual or even the same group that left the Hadar metatarsal - or, for that matter, the same species. But these traits had to come from a common ancestor, and likely did because both feet and hands are regulated by the same genes, generally speaking. Notably, Tutankhamun had a clubfoot, which directly links these ancient finds to Egyptian royalty, and thus to Mu.

As far as piecing together the rest of the skeleton, it has to be remembered that 'Lucy' hasn't been reconstructed from a single individual, but rather many individuals seperated by hundreds of thousands of years. The fragmentary nature of hominid finds is well known, and humans are well known for simply leaving ancient corpses out in the open to rot, and grinding up mummies for fertilizer. Mungo lady, for example, shows evidence of being, in sequence, set on fire, having her bones crushed, and being set on fire again;

>http://www.visitmungo.com.au/who-was-mungo-lady
>Her body was cremated, the remaining bones were crushed, burned again and then buried in the growing lunette

Mungo man was 'buried' with his hands in front of his pelvis and ribcage - a defensive posture, or indicative that his hands were tied in front of his body. The only evidence of a ceremony is red ochre found on Mungo man's head and upper body. This red ochre would have made Mungo man stand out to di- and mono- chromats, and may have been a mark of defeat as well as a sign to lead other hominids to his remains.

Mungo man, let's remember, displayed mt-haplogroups S, H, V, and U - and only the 'contaminant' haplogroup V was found in both attempts at sequencing his genome. Mungo lady was probably either a mummy who was dug up and set on fire, or a living woman who was first set on fire, then beaten to pieces, and finally left - any ochre again might have only marked a kill. As well, bolstering this claim, modern Australian aboriginees display the rare R1b1 haplogroup as well has haplogroup I.

The skulls of Mungo man and Mungo lady can be seen here;

>http://www.donsmaps.com/mungo.html
>http://www.donsmaps.com/clickphotos/mungoskull.jpg
>http://www.donsmaps.com/images15/mungoIMG_2340b.jpg

There's clearly a 'type' to the skull, and this 'Mungo-type skull' is clearly a subset of the Cro-magnon type;

>https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cro-Magnon-male-skull.png
>http://www.modernreaders.com/kennewick-man/45284/melissa-taylor

At the bottom and back of the Cro-magnon and Kennewick skulls, a projection can be seen that resembles the projection of neanderthals - the skull is almost a pyramid in that the back, front and sides all taper towards the top. Modern Ameriendian skulls still display this feature, but have become progressively rounder and less tapered;

>https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/The_American_Indian/Chapter_18
>https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/File:The_American_Indian_Fig_93.jpg

This Mungo-type skull is also found in southern China in the form of the 68k-159kYBP Liujiang remains;

>http://www.anthro.amu.edu.pl/pdf/ve/vol010/01rose.pdf
>“at least 68,000 years old, but more likely to 111–-139 ka. Alternatively they would be older than ~ 159 ka”. Thus, the date of 67,000 years old which has usually been attributed to the specimen in the past is plausible as a minimum
>Woo did not give much attention to the innominate other than to describe the iliac fossa as shallow and the acetabulum as facing forward
>His conclusions about the specimen were that “on the whole, however, the Liukiang specimen shows clearly its Mongoloid racial affinities”
>He remarked on the small size of the individual compared to living people which he estimated as 145–-150 cm (“on the upper border of the Pygmy range”
>Coon reiterated Woo’s (1959) statement that the acetabulum is rotated somewhat forward
>Mongoloid form of Homo sapiens still in the process of evolution except that the skull deviates somewhat from the Mongoloid line in an Australoid direction, as one would expect from an ancient skull from southeast china, the contact zone between the Mongoloid and Australoid peoples
>Like Woo, he emphasized the “Mongoloid” rather than “Australoid” character of the skull but did not comment on the postcrania, other than to say that the “small size of face and postcrania give no basis for a suggestion of Negrito racial affinity”
>The small size of the acetabulum and the wide sciatic notch might on first analysis, suggest that the individual may be female. The sciatic notch is fairly wide and the two parts are more symmetrical than J-shaped. The “arc composé” takes the form of a double curve which has been reported as more common in females than in males
>By the standards of the Chinese sample, the Liujiang specimen is clearly male: by the standards of the Australian Aboriginal sample it would be intermediate (when measured following Davivongs) and by the Czech and Ugandan samples it is also intermediate between males and females
>Interesting corroborative evidence of the hypothesis that the Liujiang specimen is a typical late Pleistocene East Asian male is provided by other late Pleistocene East Asian fossils, the Minatogawa specimens from Japan, dated to about 18,000 years (Suzuki and Hanihara 1982). Minatogawa 1 (a male) is very similar to the Liujiang specimen both in its small overall body size (stature is estimated at 153 cm) and in the OB/Breadth of the Sciatic Notch index, while Minatogawa 2 and 3 (both females) have higher indices in the range of the Han Chinese females (Baba and Narasaki 1991). These Japanese specimens show the pattern of dimorphism hypothesized for the population from which the Liujiang specimen is derived

Regardless of the spine, the forward-facing acetabulum forces the the lower body into a constant seating-pose, and to compensate the spine would arch backwards;

>http://aboutjoints.com/physicianinfo/topics/anatomyhip/biomechanicship.htm
>They made their measurements with the pelvic brim approximately horizontal, where it can be seen that the acetabula are obviously facing forwards (Figure 1.16). However, in the erect position, the anterior-superior iliac spines and pubic symphysis are in the same plane and the acetabulae are not as obviously anteverted (Figure 1.17). McKibbin measured 30 each adult male and female pelvises, oriented this position, and recorded an average anteversion of 14° (5-19°) for men and 19° (10-24°) for women (6). When the pelvis is flexed, as it is in sitting, the forward facing of the acetabulum is accentuated. In the erect position, the anterior-superior iliac spines and the symphysis pubis lie in the coronal plane. In this position, the acetabulum opening is directed approximately 45° laterally and 15° forward. Flexion of the pelvis on the lumbar spine increases the apparent anteversion without greatly changing the apparent lateral opening, whereas lumbar lordosis does the opposite.
>Figure 1.16. With the pelvis positioned so that the brim is nearly horizontal, the acetabula obviously face forward
>Figure 1.17. In the neutral position (anterior-superior iliac spines and pubic symphysis all in the coronal plane) the acetabular anteversion is less marked

Essentially, Lumbar lordosis+ = Acetabular anteversion-,

Average anteversion = Male = 14deg, Female = 19deg,

   /@
   \
 _/      A - Acetabulum angled horizontally; forward pelvic tilt in compensation
\
 |_

 |@
  \
 /       B - Acetabulum angled diagonally; no compensation
\
 |_

|@
\
 |         C - Acetabulum angled vertically; backward pelvic tilt in compensation
 |
/_

Note the similarity of A to Venus figurines and the depiction of queen Ari of Punt.

Neanderthals had specific mutations involving the spine that reduced their lordotic curve, whereas humans and denisovans have the ancestral form;

>http://m.pnas.org/content/suppl/2014/04/17/1405138111.DCSupplemental/pnas.1405138111.sapp.pdf
>Among the derived non-synonymous changes seen on the Neandertal lineage, but that are ancestral in Denisova and present-day humans, the only significantly enriched phenotypic term is “hyperlordosis

This means that Y-DNYA had a human lordotic curve, and judging by the clearly foreward-facing Acetabula of the Cro-magnon Liujiang remains, this lordotic curve was used to bend the spine back at the waist to compensate for a constant seated-posture in the lower body. Liujiang man is feminine and neotenous in the same manner as whatever left the pigeon-toed footprints at Laetoli - officially left by afarensis, who also shows the lumbar curve and general gracile build;

>https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Owen_Lovejoy/publication/51367381_The_natural_history_of_human_gait_and_posture_Part_1_Spine_and_pelvis/links/09e4150576bc55d3fe000000/The-natural-history-of-human-gait-and-posture-Part-1-Spine-and-pelvis.pdf
>The only substantial evidence of vertebral structure in A. afarensis is provided by a single lumbar vertebra from AL-288-1 (probably L3) [35]. As with humans, the trans- verse distance separating the facet joints in AL-288-1 is far greater in the sacrum than in the L3 (Fig. 3). As would be expected to accompany this specialization, conspicuous “imbrication pockets” are present (Fig. 4). These serve as strong (Type 4; cf. Table 1) evidence of considerable lordotic flexibility of the lumbar column. As with modern humans, its sacral facets have a more coronal orientation than do those of apes
>This almost certainly reflects a shift in the expression boundaries of one or more Hox genes (e.g., Hoxa9, Hoxb9, Hoxc9) relative to their ex- pression in Homo sapiens. Whether the number of thoracic vertebrae was also reduced to 11, or 12 thoracic vertebrae were instead maintained and the shift was more caudal (lumbo-sacral), or the number of presacral somites incre- mented, cannot be resolved because the thoracic columns in both specimens are incomplete. In any case, however, australopithecines had lumbar spines that were more mobile and capable of lordosis than are those of average modern humans
>Haeusler et al. recently presented detailed arguments [40] that these two specimens exhibit only five lumbar vertebrae (as well as KNM-WT15000, a specimen of H. erectus also described as having six lumbar vertebrae [31,36,41]; see be- low), but with the last thoracic essentially having lumbar-like function
>The implications are quite profound. Since apes exhibit the opposite change of lumbar column reduction (Fig. 2), the demonstrably more lordotic column in Australopithecus than occurs even in most H. sapiens

Even at Laetoli, the connection between the bone fragments that produced the collected Lucy specimen didn't necessarily come from the same individual or the same species - even back in 3600kYBP, it was probably a Liuliang man who left those modern, clubbed footed prints. For that matter, the bones said to belong to Lucy may belong to something like Liujiang man. But the time between 3600kYBP and 159kYBP - 3441k - is enormous, and between the Laetoli footprints and the split between humans and chimps was itself 900k years. For that matter, any hominid fossils found in Africa may be Y-DNYA-48q-P91-8T hybrids - which would explain the skull fragments found at Laetoli.

Hyperlordosis, pigeon-toe, short stature, and evidence of the retention of fat pads on the feet which is a neotenous feature when retained in adults. Art produced by the people who belonged to these ancient cultures included lordotic Venus figurines and cave art depicting the specific form of lordosis these ancient people displayed, such as the Sorcerer at Les Trois Freres;

>http://www.faculty.umb.edu/gary_zabel/Courses/Phil%20281/Philosophy%20of%20Magic/My%20Documents/Therianthropes.htm
>http://www.faculty.umb.edu/gary_zabel/Courses/Phil%20281/Philosophy%20of%20Magic/Paleolithic%20Art/pax-sorcerer.gif

Note how the back seems to have a third curve at the base of the thorax which causes the back to arch backwards at that point, and this feature is combined with a long lower back or lumbar spine that seems to transition to a thoriatic identity further up the back than in a modern human. On the Venus of Lespugue, you can see how this would have looked with copius gynoid fat deposits;

>http://donsmaps.com/lespuguevenus.html
>http://donsmaps.com/images28/lespugeoriginal.jpg

Note the short shins and small feet of the Venus - these likely represented the thin shins and small, clubbed feet of the person being depicted. As well, neanderthals had short forearms and shins;

>http://donsmaps.com/lemoustier.html
>http://donsmaps.com/images25/neanderthaladaption.jpg
>The Neanderthals were a northern form of human in the same way that the arctic hare is a northern form of the jackrabbit. They evolved the most extreme anatomical adaptations to cold climates ever found among hominids, and have been characterised as 'hyperpolar

Even up to 7kYBP, these short shins and small feet were being depicted;

>http://www.anthropark.wz.cz/mmka.htm
>http://www.anthropark.wz.cz/morkul4.jpg
>http://www.anthropark.wz.cz/morkul15.jpg

Note how a modern woman's frame fits almost perfectly with the Venus figurines - except for her shins and feet, which are too long and thick to be the woman that the Venus was modeled on. Yet, a neanderthal woman (Or man, if he had Aromatase Excess Syndrome) would display these short shins and steatopygia, and likely so would Y-DNYA. However, a neanderthal woman would likely have no lordotic curve - a Y-DNYA woman or Liuliang man, however, would.

In attempting to reconstruct a "swamp ape," certain people have accidently stumbled on what was probably Y-DNYA's posture;

>http://frontiersofzoology.blogspot.com/2012/04/skunk-apes-part-2.html?m=1
>http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-N0ThiXsg-wQ/T3g8k4xjHzI/AAAAAAAAPko/fuCrPx88acQ/s1600/neanderthal-2.jpg

The Liujiang man was related to ”australoids, and in modern natives of Papua New Guinea, a unique form of lumbar lordosis can be found;

>https://umanitoba.ca/faculties/arts/anthropology/tutor/case_studies/dani/
>https://umanitoba.ca/faculties/arts/anthropology/tutor/case_studies/dani/dani1.jpg
>http://www.papuaerfgoed.org/en/Pigs_and_Pig_Ceremonies_in_New_Guinea
>http://www.papuaerfgoed.org/files/u1/Baliem_varken_nora__0.jpg
>http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-geography-travel-indonesia-people-dani-tribe-men-shooting-a-pig-island-8035565.html
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-2721716/Mock-battles-tribal-clothing-pig-feast-Inside-celebrations-traditions-one-world-s-decorative-Papua-tribes.html
>http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/08/11/1407745747648_wps_117_WAMENA_INDONESIA_AUGUST_0.jpg
>http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/08/11/1407745198762_wps_60_WAMENA_INDONESIA_AUGUST_0.jpg
>http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/08/11/1407745446211_wps_90_WAMENA_INDONESIA_AUGUST_0.jpg
>http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/08/11/1407745451964_wps_91_WAMENA_INDONESIA_AUGUST_0.jpg

However, it must be remembered that none of these finds represent Y-DNYA, but rather are hybrids between Y-DNYA and 48q-P91-8T. Since the Laetoli footprints date back to 3.6MyaYBP, and the chromosomal fusion of 2aq and 2bq occured around 4.5MyaYBP, we should expect to see evidence of curved spines, long limbs and the absence of a tail before 3.6Mya. All of these traits date back to Proconsul, circa 23Mya-25Mya;

>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proconsul_(primate)
>Proconsul is an extinct genus of primates that existed from 23 to 25 million years ago during the Miocene epoch
>a long flexible back, curved metacarpals, and an above-branch arboreal quadrupedal positional repertoire. The primary feature linking Proconsul with extant apes is its lack of a tail; other "ape-like" features include its enhanced grasping capabilities, stabilized elbow joint and facial structure. Proconsul was definitely not suspensory like modern apes
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Proconsul_skeleton_reconstitution_(University_of_Zurich).JPG
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Proconsul_nyanzae_skeleton.jpg
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Proconsul_NT.jpg
>Proconsul is therefore "ancestral to the Chimpanzee" in Hopwood's words
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proconsul_africanus
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ProconsulZICA.png
>It seems to me, however, to be neither an ancestral ape, nor yet an ancestor of man, but a side branch with characteristics of both stocks..."

As always, Proconsul was based on multiple separate finds, not a single find. The skull, vertebrae and limb bones don't necessariliy represent a single species. However, the reconstructions, based as they are strictly on remains labeled 'Proconsul,' are telling in that they resemble a human bent over and walking on all fours;

>http://www.reptileevolution.com/proconsul.htm
>http://www.reptileevolution.com/images/archosauromorpha/synapsids/mammals/proconsul.jpg
>Proconsul africanus (Hopwood 1933a, b; 18-14 mya) was preceded by Aegyptopithecus and succeeded by Ardipithecus

Ardipithecus however was a massive departure from Proconsul - Ardipithecus had shorter legs, more robust arms, a brow ridge, less prognathecism, and, critically, blunt herbivorous teeth. In fact, Proconsul's skull is so different from that of Ardipithecus that they don't seem to belong to the same order, let alone the same species. To say that Proconsul had "characteristics of both stocks," yet was a "side branch" is simply impossible - heterozygotic gene pools divide into homozygotic gene pools. Unless of course the common ancestor of apes and man was heterozygotic for the alleles that induced ape, archaic mammalian and modern human phenotypes.

Proconsul in truth resembles a micrognathic, tail-less howler monkey;

>http://bio.sunyorange.edu/updated2/pl%20new/70%20monkeys.htm
>http://bio.sunyorange.edu/updated2/pl%20new/Ch.%2070--Primates.Monkeys_files/19%20comparison.jpg

Note the brow ridge. The ancestor of Proconsul was Aegyptopithechus, who shows less prognasticism, and smaller body size;

>http://www.reptileevolution.com/aegyptopithechus.htm
>Aegyptopithecus zeuxis (Simons 1965, 1967, 1987, 33 mya) was preceded by the adapid, Notharctus and succeeded by Proconsul
>Each of the several known specimens had a unique face, such as a shorter snout and wider cheekbones
>The nostrils would have opened close together and down, as in Old World monkeys. No vibrissae (whiskers) were present. The upper lip would have been uncleft and not bound to the gums underneath, which gave Aegyptopithecus more facial expressions
>32 teeth were present, the same number as in humans, two incisors, one canine, two premolars and three molars per ramus. The incisors were chisel-shaped, the canines long and sharp and the lower molars had a five-cusp pattern
>http://www.reptileevolution.com/images/archosauromorpha/synapsids/mammals/aegyptopithecus.jpg

Aegyptopithecus is more similar to a new world monkey in many ways, and at 33MyaYBP, dates to the era of the last common ancestor of all new world monkeys. Exactly how monkeys got to the new world at all is an unanswered question, and related to it is the unique retention of new world monkey traits (Small brow ridge, gracile arms) among early old world primates, which were later lost in Ardipithecus and only regained within the last 100,000 years.

Adding to the mystery is why early neanderthals, H. heidelbergensis and H. rhodesiensis retained skull traits that seem to date back to Aegyptopithecus and Proconsul - an almost dog or bear like prognasticism;

>http://apuntes.santanderlasalle.es/filo_1/evolucion/evolucion_04.htm
>http://apuntes.santanderlasalle.es/filo_1/evolucion/h_heildebergensis/craneo_5_miguelon.jpg

But also note the eye sockets or orbits - robust, but of a totally modern shape. The forehead is slanted backwards at the brow, but it has the modern curve, and a tapered shape that narrows from the brow towards the top of the head creating a cone or pyramid shape;

>http://humanorigins.si.edu/sites/default/files/styles/full_width/public/images/square/heidelbergensis_Kabwe_jddh_3qtr_s.jpg?itok=wRs4e1HH

The curve of the forehead and distinctive brow can be seen here;

>https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Rhodesian_Man.jpg

Note also the 'hook' at the back of the skull at brow level.

In this picture of H. heidelbergensis, the prognasticism is still evident, the unique brow profile is visible, the modern forehead curve is also visible, and the jaw shows a similarity to Aegyptopithecus and Proconsul while also showing hints of modern chin and jaw structure;

>http://www.nhm.ac.uk/natureplus/servlet/JiveServlet/showImage/38-3667-73574/Homo-heidelbergensis-skull1500.jpg

That heidelbergensis and rhodesiensis resemble their ancestors is unsurprising - it entails only that many very archaic traits were retained in the human population. As well, and similarities between heidelbergensis and rhodesiensis and a modern person are unsurprising - native Americans have neanderthal and denisovan DNA, so a throwback among them with one or two traits showing very archaic features wouldn't be surprising.

But rather than throwbacks, some central and south American skulls seem to have completely archaic phenotypes;

>https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/Mayancranialmodification.jpg
>http://www.robertschoch.net/Eccentric%20Lives%20Peculiar%20Notions%20CMD%20CT.htm
>http://www.robertschoch.net/MSkl4.jpg
>http://www.badarchaeology.com/extraterrestrials/the-starchild-skull/

I can't find a source for this skull, but it appears as archaic as any old world neanderthal;

>http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-d0yEMaMPpiU/TWvdWttNssI/AAAAAAAAAWc/8NKeu-1iPnI/s1600/1500435-peru_giant_skull_super.jpg

And there are skulls with a mix of modern and archaic characteristics;

>https://www.shutterstock.com/zh/image-photo/mexico-city-mex-oct-27-2016-535882084?src=YvYnc58OO-KKDD2R5sA6cg-1-36
>https://thumb7.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/1070501/535882084/stock-photo-mexico-city-mex-oct-sculls-in-the-national-museum-of-anthropology-museo-nacional-de-535882084.jpg
>http://c8.alamy.com/comp/BXR662/deformed-skulls-are-displayed-in-the-national-museum-of-anthropology-BXR662.jpg

If these skulls were bound to create this shape, why does Proconsul have the same skull shape? Why does it appear as if Proconsul simply lost prognasticism and shortened and shrunk it's skull? For that matter, why do Cro-magnon skulls like Liujiang man retain the elongated skull, differing primarily from Proconsul in the size of the brow ridge and degree of prognasticism? If however, we ignore Ardipithecus and the other African hominids, and jump straight from Proconsul to Cro-magnon, neanderthal and denisovan, we have tens of millions of years where Proconsul would have stayed totally unchanged. We should expect to see not only intermediary forms in the African fossil record, but also living relatives.

Nothing in Africa today resembles Proconsul, except for maybe the baboon in general body shape - the baboon's skull is utterly different;

>http://bio.sunyorange.edu/updated2/pl%20new/70%20monkeys.htm
>http://bio.sunyorange.edu/updated2/pl%20new/Ch.%2070--Primates.Monkeys_files/39%20series.jpg
>http://bio.sunyorange.edu/updated2/pl%20new/Ch.%2070--Primates.Monkeys_files/41%20series.jpg

In fact, the difference between Ardipithecus and Proconsul seems to be a dash of baboon - almost as if something like a baboon bred with Proconsul to produce Ardipithecus. Neanderthals seem to be a purer form of Proconsul, with less proto-baboon, and Cro-magnon seem to be highly modified Proconsul. Add to this the fact that, like chimps, baboons are younger than modern human feet (Laetoli;)

>http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/29225/20150824/earliest-baboon-discovered-shed-light-evolution.htm
>Researchers have discovered the oldest baboon to date. They've uncovered a skull that dates back more than 2 million years ago at Malapa, which is the same site where the new early hominin species, Australopithecus sediba, were discovered in 2010
>The skull actually confirms earlier suggestions that the fossil baboon species to which it belongs, Papio angusticeps, was closely related to modern baboons and quite possibly the earliest known members of the modern baboon species Papio hamadryas
>Despite their evolutionary success, modern baboon origins in the fossil record are not well-understood or agreed upon
>"According to molecular clock studies, baboons are estimated to have diverged from their closest relatives by ~1.8 to 2.2 million years ago; however, until now, most fossil specimens known within this time range have been either too fragmentary to be definitive or too primitive to be confirmed as members of the living species Papio hamadryas

Or is it a situation where Proconsul is itself a hybrid? lt's body is even more human than that of Ardipithecus, and until Cro-magnon appears in the fossil record, all hominids have many inhuman traits. Adding to this confusion is the fact that many new world monkeys are closer to human behavior and phenotype than any old world monkey;

>https://boneclones.com/images/store-product/product-1509-main-main-big-1454455192.jpg
>Howler Monkey Skull

Compared to the Howler monkey, the Wooly spider monkey is even more human;

>http://www.skullsunlimited.com/record_variant.php?id=4338
>http://www.skullsunlimited.com/userfiles/image/variants_large_4338.jpg

Both seem primitive compared to the Squirrel monkey and Weeping Capuchin;

>https://boneclones.com/product/weeping-capuchin-skull-BC-263/category/new-world-monkey-skulls/non-human-primates
>https://boneclones.com/images/store-product/product-909-main-main-big-1415041036.jpg

>https://boneclones.com/product/squirrel-monkey-skull-BC-320/category/new-world-monkey-skulls/non-human-primates
>https://boneclones.com/images/store-product/product-740-main-main-big-1415040534.jpg

The Howler monkey and Wooly Spider monkey are to the Squirrel monkey and Weeping Capuchin as the more primitive skulls are to Cro-magnon. In fact, the exact same skull shape seen in the Squirrel monkey and Weeping Capuchin is seen in Cro-magnon, to the point of either relation or convergent evolution. Neanderthal traits can be seen in the Saki monkey;

>https://boneclones.com/product/saki-monkey-skull-BC-304/category/new-world-monkey-skulls/non-human-primates
>https://boneclones.com/images/store-product/product-1049-main-main-big-1415041511.jpg

Certain old world monkeys, like the Talapoin can resemble humans;

>http://www.skullsunlimited.com/record_variant.php?id=8317
>http://1kai.dokkyomed.ac.jp/mammal/en/species_all/miopithecus_talapoin.html

But the salient point is that at no time in the past do we lack for any phenotypical trait we care to look for. Rather than being descendent from the other apes, Y-DNYA is simply a concentration of traits which all existed in a common primate ancestor before the split between new and old world monkeys. Aside from genetic evidence that ties our X chromosomes together starting at 234kYBP or later, genetic clock analysis pushes the split between humans and chimps to 310Mya. An unknown hominid interbred with Y-DNYA circa 37kYBP, and the chromosomal fusion that gave humans 46 chromosomes could have happened as late as 765kYBP or as early as 4500kYBP.