Executive Chairman Publishes Research Review Article on Human Race and its Evolution
The Council on Interdisciplinary Advancement has had amazing success with multiple committees, including its Committee on Environmental Preservation, which focuses on professionals working in this sector, as well as Scopes 1 through 3.
The Committee had a session in 2025 that uncovered interesting insights which led to further research to re-examine homo sapiens sapiens (not a duplicate typo) and its role in various habitats on Earth.
The Executive Chairman wrote a research review article based on the Committee's findings, which was peer-reviewed and just published in the Telicom Research Journal, the publication of the International Society of Philosophical Enquiry (ISPE).The article provides a unique perspective on the human species and asks why it evolved the way it did.
You can see the article here and below:
ISPE: TELICOM 38, No. 2 — Second Quarter 2026
An Examination and Re-Evaluation of Human Genetic
Evolution, Intellect, Anatomy, Behavior,
and Adaptations for Existence on Earth
by Harish V., MBA, RFSPE
ABSTRACT
Recently published information and data have
presented new insights into human evolution and
origins. Drawing from interdisciplinary research in
biology, anthropology, genetics, and comparative
physiology, one can argue that certain components
of human development may be uniquely different
from the components of development found in any
other species that have ever existed on Earth. Even
current-day components of human development
show signs of idiomatic modifications.
Various anomalies in human biology, such
as unique anatomical problems, physiology,
diet, reproduction, disorientation with the sun
and environment, and mental health concerns
are indicative of a questionable divergence in
evolution.
INTRODUCTION
Research for this paper began after a
subcommittee was launched within the Council
on Interdisciplinary Advancement to investigate
historical, ethical, adaptational, economic,
and biological advantages and motivators for
environmental manipulation. During research
and deliberation, the term invasive species
was repeatedly heard during the discussion
regarding environmental manipulation. Thus,
the subcommittee reached the consensus that
invasive species was a recurring item of focus
among the most widely accepted factors affecting
environmental change and jeopardization. As an
example of a typical definition of invasive species,
the National Ocean Service defines an invasive
species as “… an organism that causes ecological
TELICOM 38, No. 2 — Second Quarter 2026 81
or economic harm in a new environment where it
is not native.”1 Oddly, the mention of “economic
harm” applies to any ecosystem, even those that
may be completely free of humans.
Also noted by the subcommittee, economics is a
factor that pertains specifically to humans. Thus,
the consideration of economic factors poses a
challenge when defining creatures as invasive;
among those creatures are humans themselves.
In addition, it is difficult to define the economic
standards by which a species is to be considered
“harmed” due to the introduction of a new species.
Humans are, after all, the architects of economic
systems. Therefore, the classification of humans
as “invasive” within habitats they demonstrably
alter or destroy for economic gain presents a stark
paradox, perhaps even hypocrisy. The persistent
framing of threats to nature through the lens of
economics raises a fundamental question: Why
is an economic factor being applied to something
so overtly natural? When examining threats to
nature, it would be more objective to exclude such
human factors so that the term “invasive” may be
applied to organisms and entities within a natural
habitat only. This concept will be discussed further
throughout the paper.
According to an article by Scientific American,
humans are Earth’s most prolific (and only)
influencer of unnatural evolution/adaptation of
plants and animals.2 In any environment, if plants,
animals, or other living creatures fail to evolve
or adapt over time and thus cannot successfully
navigate their environment for survival, they will
cease to exist. Human beings have been the most
significant cause of environmental displacement
to other species and will become the only species
in the history of planet Earth to cause a mass
extinction, according to the World Wildlife
Foundation.3
The objective of this research paper is to examine
why Homo sapiens sapiens is the only species
on this planet which constantly displaces other
species, permanently alters its own environments,
and fails to instinctively display behaviors
that would indicate symbiosis with its given
environment.
This paper presents hypotheses and invites open
discussion regarding the possibility of unnatural
origins of the human species. Conclusions
and discussion points are based on a synthesis
and analysis of existing scientific literature,
observations, and anecdotal evidence across
various disciplines.
METHODS
The following methodological approaches were
employed:
Literature Review: A comprehensive
review was conducted of the scientific
literature in fields including, but not limited
to, evolutionary biology, paleontology,
anthropology, genetics, psychiatry, and
psychology. This review focused on identifying
anomalies, inconsistencies, and areas of
debate within the current understanding of
human evolution and adaptation to Earth’s
environment.
Genetic Analysis Interpretation: Existing
genetic research on human origins and
migrations was examined. Focus was placed on
interpreting findings related to the emergence
of Homo sapiens sapiens, such as the unique
genes that influence intellectual development
and function, signs of idiomatic genetic
anomalies, the presence of ORFan genes,
and the Rhesus D (RhD) factor (which has
potentially inconsistent origins).
Comparative Anatomy and Physiology:
Detailed comparisons were made between
the anatomy/physiology of humans and that
of other species on Earth, both present and
extinct. Particular attention was paid to unique
human traits, such as the Rhesus factor,
intelligence, sensitivity to the environment,
environmental orientation, structural efficiency,
diet, and difficulties during childbirth.
82 TELICOM 38, No. 2 — Second Quarter 2026
These traits were analyzed in the context of
their adaptive advantages or disadvantages
within Earth’s environment. Research was
used to highlight the historical and current
mental dispositions and fixations of Homo
sapiens sapiens. These traits were crossexamined
against existing evidence found in
anthropologic research regarding the mental
health of the ancestors of Homo sapiens
sapiens.
Important to note is that the methodology
employed in this paper relies primarily on the
interpretation and synthesis of existing information
rather than on the generation of new empirical
data. The conclusions drawn may, therefore,
be considered speculative and are intended to
stimulate further scientific inquiry into the origins
of the human species.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Human Anthropology and Genetic Data
No predecessors of Homo sapiens are known to
have caused the endangerment or extinction of
other living creatures or to have altered (or even
destroyed) their own environments as drastically
as Homo sapiens sapiens.4 To understand the
root of this unique and arguably destructive
trait of Homo sapiens sapiens, it is crucial to
examine the main factor that sets humans apart
from all other life on this planet: intellect. This
article examines research and insights from some
modern-day anthropologists, molecular biologists,
and neuropsychologists who study the main
differentiators between modern-day humans and
their evolutionary ancestors, fellow mammals,
and closest cousins within kingdom Animalia.
This paper will also argue not only that the most
significant separator between Homo sapiens and
any creature known to have existed on planet Earth
is intelligence but also that biological evolution
as the contributing factor for the intellectual
advancement of Homo sapiens sapiens is within
reasonable doubt.
GENETIC ANALYSIS INTERPRETATION
Intellectual Expression Through Genetics
Within Homo Sapiens Sapiens
Delving deeper into the biological basis of
the exceptional human intellect, the work
of Dr. Richard Haier, the world’s leading
neuropsychologist in the study of intelligence,
provides valuable insights. In his book, The
Neuroscience of Intelligence, Dr. Haier wrote
that intelligence into adulthood is absolutely
linked to hereditary genes.5 Hereditary genes are
responsible for less than 50% of the development
of intelligence before age 10. The influence of
genes on intelligence increases to about 64% at
age 12, and to 80% by age 18. Environment and
health play a prolific role in intelligence in early
life. An extensive study of identical twins raised
in completely separate environments found that
genetic influences on their intelligence resulted in
very similar intelligence scores and capabilities
as adults even though the twins had been raised
apart and continued to live separately as adults.6
Genetically, the development of human intellect is
unique, complex, and follows a specific and timed
trajectory.
The process of activation or deactivation of genetic
expression is known as methylation. Methylation
can be influenced by environmental factors, and
the patterns of methylation change as an individual
reaches adulthood. In a sense, these changes in
methylation could serve as a genetic indicator of
reaching “adulthood” for a given individual. For
purposes of simplicity in government and society,
general, simple, quantifiable age markers are used,
including terms such as childhood, adolescence,
teenager, adulthood (age 18 or older in the United
States and select other countries), and elder (65
and older in the United States and select other
countries). However, genetic methylation could
serve as a more accurate indicator of the stages of
life for Homo sapiens sapiens.
Intelligence is often divided into two defined
categories: crystallized and fluid.7 Crystallized
TELICOM 38, No. 2 — Second Quarter 2026 83
intelligence pertains to the absorption and
memorization of given facts, such as geographical
locations or statistics of sports teams. Savants
are individuals who display superior crystallized
intelligence.8 Fluid intelligence refers to the ability
to process information or to exercise “inductive”
and “deductive” reasoning. Simply put, fluid
intelligence is associated with problem-solving.
Dr. Haier points out that fluid intelligence is often
associated with the likes of Albert Einstein and
Sir Isaac Newton.9 The point could be made that,
while Homo sapiens sapiens possess superior
crystallized and fluid intellect compared with
other animals on this planet, our intellect uniquely
allows us to assess our environment, self-evaluate
our own needs and desires, and calculate ways to
cater to those needs and desires through or from
our environment. This ability to innovate is vastly
different from the abilities of other creatures.
Within Homo sapiens sapiens, widely varying
degrees of intellect have been observed.
Dr. Haier’s lifelong study of the neuroscience of
intelligence also focuses on how intelligence tests
(IQ tests) have evolved significantly since they
were first introduced. His work also reveals that
various scans of brain activity have shown that
particular intelligence-test questions stimulate the
exact regions of the human brain that are known
to be associated with the specific problem-solving
abilities that the test questions intended to assess.10
Thus, a hypothesis could be proposed that, for
an adult whose intelligence-related genes have
experienced cessation of methylation, the most
stable and indicative gauge of that individual’s true
consanguineal genetic intellectual expression is
the intelligence score not the intelligence quotient
(IQ), because the age quotient does not apply to
adults. Another possible hypothesis that could
be drawn from these data is that the IQ scores
(applied to children, primarily) of humans who
have not reached intellectual genetic methylation
cessation will not be accurate in determining
the ultimate intellectual ability and standing of
those individuals, both because environmental
factors still play significant roles and also
because neuroplasticity is still optimal for early
developmental crystallized and fluid learning.
While there are between 19,000 and 22,000 genes
that constitute Homo sapiens sapiens, many have
yet to be identified in terms of their roles in human
development and existence. Dr. Haier identified
a synaptic receptor gene, N-methyl D-aspartate
(NMDA), as having a significant role in the human
ability to learn and to form and retain memories.11
Another gene, known as NR2B, assists in NMDA’s
receptor functionality. In one experiment, NMDA
and NR2B genes were introduced into the DNA of
mouse embryos, and those mice were later able to
process, learn, and execute tasks more quickly than
the controlled, unaltered mice.12 Other genes have
been studied and identified as having influence on
intellectual development, such as brain-derived
neurotrophic factor (BDNF). The BDNF gene
maintains synapses in the nervous system and
specifically promotes healthy cognitive function.
Val66Met, another gene with ties to BDNF, is
involved with neural repair and regeneration.13
Certain aspects of human intelligence and
genetics may not have arisen through purely
natural evolutionary processes on Earth. While
this is a highly debated notion, this paper presents
evidence which is drawn from specific research
that challenges mainstream evolutionary theory.
For example, some genes that specifically and
significantly influence human intelligence
(including some of the genes previously
mentioned) appear to be unique to Homo sapiens
sapiens. Some exclusive and significant genes,
such as HYDIN2, seemingly never existed in any
other creature, living or extinct, that has existed
on this planet.14 HYDIN2 is exclusive to Homo
sapiens sapiens. It is a copy of the HYDIN gene,
which is found in select other animals. Both
HYDIN and HYDIN2 primarily focus on neuronal
communication and efficiency.15 However, the
head and tail of the constituent telomere structure
of the HYDIN2 gene have been very unnaturally
“stripped off.” In place of the head of the HYDIN2
gene is an identical-length, original head section
of a completely different gene. This unusual
structure allows HYDIN2 to be far more efficient
than HYDIN.16 Select genes even show what some
84 TELICOM 38, No. 2 — Second Quarter 2026
researchers interpret as signs of unnatural gene
manipulation, which would have been possible
only within the last two decades; yet, these signs
are found in the DNA of Homo sapiens, which is
over 300,000 years old.17
Hominins, as a tribe, can be traced back to about
2.8 million years ago,18 when the brains of early
hominins were roughly the same size and volume
as those of modern-day chimpanzees.19 For another
800,000 years, hominin brain sizes remained
unchanged.20 From about 800,000 years ago until
about 200,000 years ago, fossilized records show
that a rapid and unexplained growth in the size of
hominin brains occurred along with an increase in
complexity, a phenomenon which still cannot be
explained beyond theory. The constituents of the
hominin group during that time period included
Homo erectus, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo
denisova, and other smaller groups. The brains of
members of these groups were on par with, if not
larger than, human brains today. As Homo sapiens
appeared toward the end of that period, brain sizes
were, by default, as large as they are today and far
larger than the early hominins that existed prior to
this 600,000-year period.21
Many accredited researchers hypothesize that
the volatile climate change during that period
forced adaptive rapid development22 of the
hominin brain in order to improve the problemsolving
skills needed to cope with the constantly
evolving environment and to independently
choose to migrate for survival.23 However, most
of the previous studies and research on biological
evolution mandate at least several million
years for such complicated advancements in
neurophysiology to occur, though evolutionary
biologists propose that changes at a genetic
level can occur more quickly than the resulting
phenotypic changes, such as a larger brain.24 Gene
duplication events (such as that of the HYDIN2
gene) or subtle mutations in key regulatory genes
(such as FOXP2), can provide the raw material
for rapid, yet still gradual, evolutionary change.25
These genetic advancements may have set the
stage for the dramatic neurophysiological changes
seen in the fossil record.26
Various theories regarding how HYDIN2 came
into existence follow:
• Gene Duplication: Around 3.2 million
years ago, a large segment of the
HYDIN gene (located on chromosome
16) was duplicated, and the duplicated
segment then moved to a new location on
chromosome 1.27
• Truncation and Fusion: During the
transfer, the duplicated segment was
incomplete, losing its original promoter
and some other parts. It then fused with a
different gene at its new location, acquiring
a new promoter and new exons.28
• Neofunctionalization: With the new
arrangement, the HYDIN2 gene began to
be expressed in a new way and in different
tissues (particularly in the brain), which
is a departure from the role of original
HYDIN gene that is primarily involved in
ciliary function. This process, known as
neofunctionalization, means that the new
gene took on a new, distinct function from
its parent gene.29
The scientific consensus is that HYDIN2 is
a product of natural evolution.30 While the
modifications that altered the HYDIN gene in
order to produce HYDIN2 may appear to be
anachronistic, the CRISPR-Cas9 system (a genesplicing
technology in use today) is itself derived
from a natural, ancient defense system found in
bacteria and archaea.31 Although the components
of this system have existed for millions of years,
there is no evidence that this system was used by
any organism, certainly not an intelligent one, to
intentionally engineer the HYDIN2 gene in the
way that a modern scientist could engineer it. The
timeline of 3.2 million years ago also places the
event well before the emergence of anatomically
modern humans, making any theories of deliberate
engineering untenable.32
TELICOM 38, No. 2 — Second Quarter 2026 85
In researching the influence of bacteria and archaea
on genetics, further findings on anomalistic genes
were uncovered. The Human Genome Project
(HGP) specifically documents 223 genes of the
19,000–22,000 ORFan genes (also called orphan
genes) that are found only in humans. In fact, these
ORFan genes have never occurred in any other
species on which DNA analysis has been able
to be performed, whether fossilized or currently
living.33 Some of these ORFan genes have come
into existence via de novo origination (noncoding
sequences of DNA), and others may have
arisen through mutation and divergence during
rapid evolution.34 A third, more fringe hypothesis
focuses on natural or artificial “horizontal transfer”
from other organisms, meaning that the ORFan
genes have been passed to organisms through
viral and/or bacterial processes.35 Even more
controversial (and decidedly outside the accepted
academic consensus) is the idea that artificial
scientific manipulation, similar to that of CRISPR/
Cas9 (even as early as the first arrival of Homo
sapiens sapiens), could also technically achieve
the creation of ORFan genes.36 However, the HGP
has already mapped all known genes that were
influenced by viruses and bacteria, as well as other
known organisms; and strikingly, none of the
223 ORFan genes have been attributed to viruses,
bacteria, or other known organisms.37
According to the National Human Genome
Research Institute, the findings of the HGP
suggested that “All humans are 99.9% genetically
identical, and only 0.1% of genetic variations are
responsible for the phenotypic differences, such
as physical traits (e.g., height, intelligence, hair,
and eye color), disease susceptibility, and drug
responses, among individuals in populations.”38
The primary cause of this 0.1% variation is single
nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). An SNP is a
variation at a single position in a DNA sequence,
where one nucleotide (A, T, C, or G) is replaced
by another. For instance, a person might have an
“A” at a specific location, while another person
has a “G.” While each SNP is a tiny difference,
millions of them occur throughout the human
genome, and their collective effect is what creates
the vast range of human diversity.39 This genetic
variation of 0.1% is significant in determining
genetic differences between individuals of the
same species as well as of different species. One
such genetic factor influenced by SNP variations is
the presence or lack of the D antigen.40
Common terms for the D antigen include Rhesus
(D) negative blood or RhD negative. According
to multiple sources, including studies cited by the
National Center for Biotechnology Information
(NCBI), the prevalence of RhD-negative blood
types is approximately 7–10% of the world’s
population.41 In Caucasians/Europeans, the
percentage is significantly higher, at around
15–17%. For example, one NCBI table lists a
15% prevalence for the RhD-negative phenotype
in Caucasians, while other sources confirm a
prevalence of 17% in Europe.42 Interestingly,
30–36% of the Basque population of Europe lacks
the D antigen, a rate significantly higher than the
European average of 15% and the global average
of 7–10%.43 Most Homo sapiens sapiens (85–92%)
possess the Rhesus factor.44 It is a genetic anomaly
that no species other than Homo sapiens sapiens
in the history of this planet has ever had the
RhD-negative antigen.45
Deletion of the RhD gene is considered a very
rare event in nature, most commonly caused
by unequal crossing over during meiosis (the
process of exchange of genetic material between
two chromosomes). For a deletion to occur,
the chromosomes must first misalign.46 The
RhD gene is flanked by two nearly identical
sequences called Rhesus boxes. During meiosis,
a chromosome’s upstream Rhesus box can
accidentally align with the downstream Rhesus
box of its homologous chromosome. When the
genetic material is exchanged, the misaligned
segment, which includes the entire RhD gene, is
cut out and deleted from the chromosome.47 The
rarity of this event is due to the low probability
of two chromosomes misaligning in this specific
manner. While other genetic mutations, such as
single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), can
occur at a higher rate, the large-scale, precise
86 TELICOM 38, No. 2 — Second Quarter 2026
nature of a gene deletion makes it a much less
frequent event. The deletion is also a very efficient
mechanism for eliminating the gene. Once it
occurs, the trait is passed down as an inheritable
genetic condition. An RhD-negative female who
is pregnant with an RhD-positive child must be
administered an “anti-D” injection during the
first pregnancy to ensure the health and stability
of subsequent pregnancies.48 Otherwise, the
mother’s autoimmune response to the presence
of the Rhesus factor would lead to rejection of a
subsequent fetus through attack on the fetus’s red
blood cells, causing hemolytic disease, anemia,
and jaundice.49
COMPARATIVE ANATOMY AND
PHYSIOLOGY
Adaptations to Habitat
Homo sapiens sapiens is the only species on the
planet that chooses primarily to live in and travel
to ecosystems where the sun may brightly shine,
even though the species is ill-equipped (apart from
intellectual advancements) to prevent sun damage.
Homo sapiens sapiens is also the only species
without adaptations to safeguard against being
blinded by the sun without use of technological
advancements.50 The involuntary reflexes to close
eyelids and reduce pupil size are insufficient
for effective protection and visual function in
these environments.51 Because modern humans
are exposed to the sun during extended periods
of the day, solar retinopathy is a risk.52 Many
animals have protection to assist with control of
sun exposure, such as the nictitating membrane
(a.k.a. the “third eyelid”), pigmentation designed
to regulate heat absorption, physical barriers
(fur, fat, blubber, etc.), or behavioral strategies.53
Members of Homo sapiens sapiens have the plica
semilunaris, an evolutionary vestigial remnant of
a nictitating membrane. However, this is another
idiomatic anomaly whereby the species devolved
(as opposed to evolved), thus losing a crucial
adaptation for surviving in sunlit environments.54
Despite being out in the sun all day, most animals
do not get cataracts unless they have a congenital
condition or serious injury; but Homo sapiens
sapiens, as a species, is highly susceptible to
cataracts due to prolonged exposure, even without
congenital conditions and/or series injuries.55
Homo sapiens sapiens is the only species whose
members specifically seek out sunny environments
in which to live, while knowing that the sun
damages our skin (due to a lack of adequate
natural adaptive protection). In addition, some
members intentionally prolong their exposure
to the sun.56 Homo sapiens sapiens appears to
have devolved, because fur (or body hair) has
substantially decreased in density and volume
from that of our ancestors, thus making us even
more susceptible to sun damage. Furthermore,
the skin of Homo sapiens sapiens, as mentioned
prior, is not adequate to protect us from UV
rays.57 Current land-dwelling animals (and their
ancestors) in the Homo genus that typically
have (or have had) natural prolonged exposure
to the sun also have naturally adapted fur that
adequately protects against continuous sunlight
and provides temperature regulation in both
cold and hot environments. Animals that roam
over sun-exposed terrain, such as deserts, often
rely on fur which prevents the scorching solar
radiation from reaching their skin. Furthermore,
many desert animals have light-colored fur which
reflects a significant amount of solar radiation and
reduces the amount of heat absorbed by the body.
Such fur is a far more sophisticated and effective
mechanism of protection than bare skin.58
Sun exposure is one of the most prolific natural
ways to maintain healthy vitamin D levels for
many animals.59 Homo sapiens sapiens, whether
light or dark-skinned, cannot sustain prolonged
periods of sun nor effectively synthesize vitamin D
from sunlight, due to the adaptation of melanin.60
In order for human bones to remain fortified,
vitamin D is required to aid calcium absorption.
Other animals, even those that avoid the sun, have
no issues with vitamin D levels (if applicable)
unless there is a genealogical anomaly or serious
injury/defect.61 Even in direct sunlight, the vitamin
D levels and calcium absorption of Homo sapiens
sapiens are always deficient.62
TELICOM 38, No. 2 — Second Quarter 2026 87
In regard to calcium intake, Homo sapiens
sapiens are the only mammals on the planet that
consume milk to supplement and maintain calcium
levels through adulthood.63 No other animal on
this planet needs to continue drinking milk into
adulthood to maintain bone density; and barring
direct human intervention, no other adult animal
drinks milk out of dietary necessity or preference,
especially not the milk of other species.64 Other
animals have well-adapted calcium-absorption
mechanisms through their natural diets.65 Humans,
however, suffer constant physiological problems
as they age, many of which problems are linked
to bone-density loss and calcium deficiencies
resulting in weaker bones and increased
susceptibility to fractures.66
Adaptations in Locomotion
The bipedalism of Homo sapiens sapiens also
presents what some interpret as contradictions
to advantageous evolution on Earth.67 Our
evolutionary ancestors, such as Neanderthals,
reportedly possessed excellent and sufficient
musculature and skeletons that effectively
supported their bipedalism.68 The modern
bipedalism of Homo sapiens sapiens, in contrast,
seems to have devolved in some aspects,
whereby human bones frequently require calcium
supplements, an issue that is also referenced in the
research regarding vitamin D acquisition.69 Some
members of Homo sapiens sapiens experience
degenerating discs within the spinal column (even
during early adulthood) and are prone to easilyinflicted
muscle tears and swelling, experience
constant joint degeneration through rigorous
physical activity, and often suffer from a narrowing
spinal column (even in early adulthood).70
Digitigrade legs (walking on toes) are arguably the
most efficient and well-suited for active lifestyles
and the gravitational forces on Earth.71 Human
plantigrade legs (walking on the soles of the feet)
appear to be somewhat compromised under our
environmental conditions; and even a hybrid,
evolved form of digitigrade and plantigrade (or
even unguligrade legs) would be more suitable
for sustained walking (nomadic lifestyle) along
with bursts of quick speed.72 Arguments have
been made that plantigrade legs are more suitable
for very long-distance walking or running; but
biologically, animals with long migration patterns
have digitigrade or hybrid digitigrade legs that are
efficient for conserving energy and minimizing
stress on the body.73 Research shows that, at
present, only modern athletes take advantage of
plantigrade legs, with physical exertion of athletes
being comparatively greater than that of the
hunter-gatherers.74 The only potential benefit of
plantigrade legs would seemingly be for a creature
that could never properly adapt to a given region
and would desire to constantly migrate, which is
not what other land-dwelling animals do.75 For
a more sedentary lifestyle with less walking or
running, or even a set migration pattern, even
across hundreds of miles, Homo sapiens sapiens
should have either adapted digitigrade legs76
or retained the bone strength and density of
predecessors of the Homo genus.77
In analysis of the instincts and adaptation essential
for long-distance traveling, it is evident that
many animals that partake in extensive migration
have the instinctive ability to detect weather
patterns. However, Homo sapiens sapiens cannot
instinctively and consciously detect changes in
the weather or atmosphere without being trained
to interpret signals.78 A large majority of species
of fauna that are in danger of adverse weather
changes have been observed by researchers
to possess some level of natural, instinctive
orientation that allows them to detect atmospheric
changes that can precede adverse weather.79
Physiology for Diet
As hunter-gatherers who travel long distances,
members of Homo sapiens sapiens are omnivores
but are not, according to scientific analysis of their
physiology, optimally equipped to process meat.80
Even with an omnivorous diet, we still frequently
fail to acquire all the nutrients needed for a healthy
lifestyle, often requiring supplementation.81
Animals that are well-adapted to an omnivorous
diet typically have claws and/or serrated teeth
88 TELICOM 38, No. 2 — Second Quarter 2026
to accompany their molars; however, both pure
herbivores and humans lack serrated teeth, and
humans also lack claws.82 In addition, carnivores
have a short intestinal tract, roughly three to
six times as long as their bodies, facilitating the
rapid processing of meat.83 Omnivores possess
an intestinal tract 10 to 15 times the length of
their bodies.84 Herbivores have significantly
longer intestinal tracts, averaging 15 to 25 times
the length of their bodies, which is better suited
for plant digestion.85 Humans, however, have
intestinal tracts more akin to pure carnivores,
averaging 3.5 to 4 times the length of their
bodies.86 To aid in digestion, the gastric-acid
pH levels of carnivores are typically below 1.0;
the levels of herbivores range between 5.5 and
7.0; that of omnivores typically range between
1.0 and 2.0; and the gastric-acid pH levels of
humans range between 1.5 and 3.5.87 Carnivores
lack ptyalin (also known as salivary amylase)
in their saliva, which is an enzyme present in
herbivores, omnivores, and humans that aids in
the initial digestion of carbohydrates.88 Intestinallength
ratios and gastric-acid pH levels for Homo
sapiens sapiens seem to suggest more efficiency
for processing both plant and animal substances.
However, this research appears to contradict the
natural lack of serrated teeth and claws,89 the fact
that humans cannot naturally process raw flesh
without health consequences,90 and the presence
of ptyalin in human saliva. In the examination
of some extraneous characteristics of fauna that
are being characterized by their primary diet,
carnivores have few or no skin pores and cannot
sweat to address overheating, whereas herbivores,
omnivores, and humans do sweat.91
Physiology for Reproduction
Childbirth in Homo sapiens sapiens also presents
an unusually high number of natural inefficiencies,
and human infants are born remarkably helpless,
lacking many basic survival instincts.92 No
other natural animal on planet Earth that gives
birth to offspring and has the ability, as a
species, to independently thrive, appears to have
inherent issues with sufficient internal space
for unobstructed birth.93 Bipedalism, especially
plantigrade legs, is a major cause of difficulty
with human birth in regard to space, which is
scientifically referred to as dystocia.94 Biologists
have even determined that the human female
pelvis could potentially be wider and still allow
for a range of motions equal to what women are
currently capable of.95 Furthermore, when human
offspring are born, their brains are only about
30% of their adult brain size.96 In comparison,
chimpanzees, which do not experience the same
labor complications as Homo sapiens sapiens,
give birth to offspring with brains that are
approximately 40% of their adult size.97 Yet, the
offspring of chimpanzees and many other animals
are precocial, quickly able to gain the ability to
walk, cling to their mothers, and exhibit instinctive
behaviors to avoid detection by predators and
other threats.98 Human babies, on the other hand,
are altricial, typically taking many months, at best,
to even begin to coordinate their movements.99
Other altricial animals, such as rabbits, birds, and
marsupial offspring, have parents that are instantly
and instinctively equipped to support their
offspring directly after birth until the offspring
can begin to gain independent coordination and
movement.100 Human babies require constant neck
support in their early months, a vulnerability not
commonly observed in other species.101 Regarding
threats, a human child will often continue to
cry and make noise with no apparent perception
of danger, even when remaining silent would
be an advantage for survival.102 This is a clear
evolutionary and adaptational disadvantage that is
not displayed by other animals.
Neurological Physiology
Some members of Homo sapiens sapiens suffer
from mental disorders, including depression,
seasonal affective disorder, and a multitude of
anxieties.103 Anthropologists and psychiatrists
have determined that our ancestors also suffered
from these ailments, suggesting they aren’t
solely manifested by the modern advent of
chemicals, technologies, or lifestyles.104 Other
animals suffer from depression and other mental
TELICOM 38, No. 2 — Second Quarter 2026 89
disorders only when exposed to unnatural stimuli,
including captivity (by Homo sapiens sapiens);
however, genetically inheriting such disorders is a
phenomenon specific to Homo sapiens sapiens.105
Biologists also observe that no other fauna on
planet Earth exhibit anything remotely similar to
the spectrum of mental disorders that our species
experiences when in their natural environment and
apart from human contact.106 In addition, no other
known species besides Homo sapiens sapiens
has ever faced maladjustment issues due to the
changing of the seasons in their respective natural
habitats.107 And uniquely, when a member of Homo
sapiens sapiens faces genetic issues or debilitating
disorders, reproduction is still a conscious choice
and often a viable option. In stark contrast, most
species of fauna and flora on this planet typically
do not and cannot reproduce when they suffer
significant disorders.108
Members of Homo sapiens sapiens also exhibit
an unusual obsession with their sexuality and
reproductive organs.109 Our sense of self and
perception of our self-image are also seemingly
unique to our species.110 We frequently reflect on
our thoughts, engage in philosophical inquiry,
and focus intently on various details of our
bodies.111 As a society, humans often display
narcissistic tendencies to a degree not observed in
other animals, including our purported ancestor
species.112 We also have a unique sense of feeling
awkward or unfamiliar with our own bodies at
times.113 A striking example is that members of
Homo sapiens sapiens, even after hundreds of
thousands of years of existence, still often find
their own exposed bodies and genitalia to be
strange and a subject of great interest (whether
positive or negative).114 In modern culture, society
continues to find sexual anatomy offensive,
intriguing, or a source of humor, depending on the
context. Humans are also remarkably preoccupied
with the concept of sexuality and intercourse,
evidenced by the age-old adage in marketing and
advertising that “sex sells.”115 No other species on
the planet appears to be as self-conscious of its
own sexual anatomy, nor as seemingly disoriented
by it, as are Homo sapiens.116
Violence, in the context of revenge, greed,
and destruction in mass quantities, appears to
be unnatural to all other living species on the
planet that exist in their natural environments,
especially when considering the scale, motives,
and psychological complexity applied to violence
and aggression among Homo sapiens sapiens.117
The violence practiced by Homo sapiens sapiens
is distinctive in its scope and motivation. While
animals often fight for territory, mates, or food,
humans have historically engaged in organized
warfare and conquest motivated by abstract
concepts such as greed, ideology, or a desire for
subjugation. This level of mass-scale, premeditated
violence is unique to our species.
Furthermore, humans are capable of aggression
that is completely unrelated to survival, such as
the destructive behavior seen in road rage; and
we have developed a unique cultural fascination
with violence through media and games.118 Even
that fascination with violence through media
and games (which provides a form of vicarious
violence even for the most outwardly “peaceful”
individuals) is arguably a phenomenon not
observed as naturally occurring in other species.119
Some animals may engage in the practices of mass
murder or infanticide in the context of complex
social strategy and not just as an act of survival.120
However, studies of those behaviors often show
that they are attributed to the core desires for
territory, mates, access to food, and natural
selection.121 The same cannot be said of motives
for violence by Homo sapiens sapiens, especially
for the multitude of modus operandi to commit
violent acts.
DISCUSSION
Summary of Key Findings
Extensive citation of accredited and distinguished
research and publications has illuminated and
reinforced the concept that Homo sapiens sapiens,
90 TELICOM 38, No. 2 — Second Quarter 2026
as a species, has struggled and continues to
struggle with developing a natural symbiotic
relationship with any natural habitat on Earth.122
A conclusion from the findings of this research
paper is that, with a degree of certainty, human
tendencies and motivations for the often drastic
manipulation of environments, habitats, and the
world around us are, perhaps, best described as
idiomatic and unique to Homo sapiens sapiens.
What can be stated with greater certainty is that
the exceptional intellect of the Homo sapiens
sapiens species being its most significant
differentiator from all other life on this planet,
present and historically, holds the ultimate
power to dictate whether we continue down
a path of environmental alteration or strive to
forge a true and sustainable symbiosis with this
planet. At present, the human capacity to control
environments on Earth has led to the current
biodiversity crisis, and the behavior of the Homo
sapiens sapiens species is in direct conflict with a
sustainable relationship with nature.123
Interpretation of Results
When reviewing the research, data, and insights
presented in this paper, a compelling, albeit
controversial, hypothesis emerges: the only
creature that might consistently exhibit behavior
so fundamentally contradictory to natural
evolutionarily advantageous traits and behaviors
would be an invasive species that was never truly
intended to belong to that given environment.
Homo sapiens sapiens is a species whose primary
instinct is to do whatever is necessary to ensure
its immediate survival, even at the expense of the
existing ecosystem, thus transcending beyond
the bounds and limitations of any other organism
that has ever existed on Earth. Given its massive
and unprecedented intellect coupled with a suite
of seemingly foreign biological traits, such an
organism might very well begin to radically
manipulate its environment to make it more
accommodating to its unique needs.
Certain factors, such as the HYDIN2 gene,
ORFans genes, RhD-negative factors,
unprecedented anatomical and adaptational
contradictions, and unique psychological
dispositions, appear to be idiomatic to Homo
sapiens sapiens; and evidence is inconclusive
regarding how these factors could have been
derived from evolution, genetic drift, or the
founder effect. It is extremely difficult to prove
beyond reasonable doubt that the genetic
components and the evolutionary design of the
Homo sapiens sapiens species are wholly endemic
and “natural” to Earth.
Relationship to Previous Research
This research-paper review expands upon previous
research and studies that are included in this paper
as supporting material. This paper does not refute
any of the research, insights, or facts presented by
the supporting material. Instead, it derives new
questions regarding the true nature behind human
evolution and the origins of our most unique,
idiomatic factors.
Limitations of the Study
This research paper was severely limited by the
author’s incomplete insight into the academic
realms of genetics, psychology, evolutionary
biology, and academic research. Another limitation
includes the difficulty in uncovering peer-reviewed
publications and research that pragmatically and
reasonably offer alternative hypotheses regarding
the origins and evolutionary theories surrounding
HYDIN2, ORFans genes, and the RhD-negative
blood factor.
To successfully present the accredited research
and data that was relied on to support this paper,
the format of exposition and careful narration
was employed to allow for respectful and rational
inferences, hypotheses, pontification, and
questions for future research on the subject.
Not possessing a physician’s degree in any of the
aforementioned academic categories, the author
TELICOM 38, No. 2 — Second Quarter 2026 91
embodies the very meaning of the word amateur.
This research paper was written out of pure
interest and love of the topic being discussed, with
the view that passion and unequivocal interest can
yield meaningful insights and results when paired
with a default endowment of intellect, proclivity,
and tenacity.
Implications and Broader Significance
The theoretical implication realized by
this research paper is that further research,
introspection, and examination of human
evolution, genealogy, and behavior should
continue to be conducted with a broader lens.
Suggestions for Future Research
Homo sapiens sapiens could be viewed within
a unique framework in which researchers and
scholars allow certain traits of Homo sapiens
sapiens to be classified as idiomatic and
individualized to the species. Doing so could
potentially spur a more specialized investigation
into the true origins of particular anatomical,
behavioral, genetic, and psychological
characteristics of Homo sapiens sapiens. This
method may also avoid some of the mistakes
previously made in some of the cited research
papers, which may have focused too heavily
on correlating components of human anatomy,
physiology, genetics, and behaviors with those of
other animals.
CONCLUSION
The determination made after reviewing accredited
research and data is that there are components of
the genetic development of Homo sapiens sapiens
that are idiomatic and that these components may
not be natural based on existing and previous
biological iterations of similar genes.
The claim that all components of human
development are natural products of their
environment goes beyond reasonable doubt.
More investigation is certainly warranted into the
origins of the following:
• the HYDIN2 gene
• ORFans genes
• anatomical structures including but
not limited to the loss of adaptations
compared to predecessors from the genus
Homo
• maladaptation to frequent environmental
exposures and hazards
• digestive-system configuration
• psychiatric and psychological dispositions
The findings may present a stark contrast between
the biological endowments and adaptations of
Homo sapiens sapiens and the very environments
that the species is supposedly intended to live in.
About the Author
Harish Vallury is the executive chairman and
founder of the Council on Interdisciplinary
Advancement, an exempt 501(c)(3), charitable
509(a)(2), educational non-profit think tank for
networking, education, and cooperation, which
services global business professionals and leaders.
Mr. Vallury is a graduate of Washington University
in St. Louis with an MBA focused on business
psychology, strategy, and behaviors. In addition,
Mr. Vallury is a Senior Research Fellow of the
International Society for Philosophical Enquiry,
a member of American Mensa, and a Mensa
Foundation Scholarship Judge and Chairman.
Mr. Vallury has served over 20 years in the private
corporate sector, first in financial fixed-income
security pricing and valuation, later in digital
advertising trading exchanges and consumer
psychology/behavior, and most recently in the
field of non-profit professional think tanks and
corporate strategy consulting.
92 TELICOM 38, No. 2 — Second Quarter 2026
1. “What Is an Invasive Species?” NOAA.gov, National Ocean Service (2019).
2. Lee Alan Dugatkin, “Humans Are Driving a New Kind of Evolution in Animals,”
Scientific American (May 15, 2024),
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/humans-are-driving-a-new-kind-of-evolution-in-animals/.
3. “What Is the Sixth Mass Extinction and What Can We Do About It?” World Wildlife Fund
(March 15, 2022),
https://www.worldwildlife.org/stories/what-is-the-sixth-mass-extinction-and-what-can-we-do-about-it.
4. “Science and the Endangered Species Act,” National Research Council (US) Committee on Scientific
Issues in the Endangered Species Act (1995), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK232371.
5. Richard Haier, The Neuroscience of Intelligence (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2017),
50–62.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid., 9–11.
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid.
12. Ibid.
13. Ibid.
14. “HYDIN2 HYDIN Axonemal Central Pair Apparatus Protein 2 (Pseudogene) [Homo sapiens
(human)],” National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine (2024),
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene/100288805.
15. Max Dougherty et al., “The Birth of a Human-Specific Neural Gene by Incomplete Duplication and
Gene Fusion,” Genome Biology 18, no. 1 (March 2017), www.researchgate.net/publication/314486689_
The_birth_of_a_human-specific_neural_gene_by_incomplete_duplication_and_gene_fusion.
16. Ibid.
17. Ibid.
18. Ibid.
19. Beth Blaxland and Fran Dorey, “Larger Brains,” Australian Museum (2018), australian.museum/
learn/science/human-evolution/larger-brains/.
NOTES................................................................................................................
TELICOM 38, No. 2 — Second Quarter 2026 93
20. “The Oldest Fossil of Our Genus,” Human Evolution Research, Smithsonian National Museum of
Natural History (March 2015),
humanorigins.si.edu/research/whats-hot-human-origins/oldest-fossil-our-genus.
21. Blaxland, “Larger Brains.”
22. “Human Characteristics: Brains,” Human Evolution Research, Smithsonian National Museum of
Natural History (January 2024), humanorigins.si.edu/human-characteristics/brains.
23. Jeff Morgan Stibel, “Climate Change Influences Brain Size in Humans,” Brain Behavior and
Evolution 98, no. 2 (2023): 93–106, https://karger.com/bbe/article/98/2/93/835670.
24. Pierre Vanderhaeghen, “How Did Human Brains Get So Large?” European Research Council (May
2018), erc.europa.eu/projects-statistics/science-stories/how-did-human-brains-get-so-large.
25. Ibid.
26. Ibid.
27. Dougherty, “The Birth.”
28. Norman Doggett et al., “A 360-kb Interchromosomal Duplication of the Human HYDIN Locus,”
Genomics 88, no. 6 (December 2006): 762–771.
29. Heike Olbrich et al., “Recessive HYDIN Mutations Cause Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia without
Randomization of Left-Right Body Asymmetry,” The American Journal of Human Genetics 91, no. 4
(October 2012): 672–684, https://www.cell.com/ajhg/fulltext/S0002-9297(12)00428-4.
30. Helen R. Dawe et al., “The Hydrocephalus Inducing Gene Product, Hydin, Positions Axonemal
Central Pair Microtubules,” BMC Biology 5, no. 33 (2007),
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/1741-7007-5-33.
31. Ibid.
32. Ibid.
33. Diethard Tautz and Tomislav Domazet-Loso, “Evolutionary Origin of Orphan Genes,” Nature
Reviews Genetics 12, no. 10 (August 2011): 692–702,
www.researchgate.net/publication/51606747_Evolutionary_Origin_of_Orphan_Genes.
34. Ibid.
35. Dawe, “The Hydrocephalus.”
36. Andrew Sih et al., “Behavioral Syndromes: An Ecological and Evolutionary Overview,” Trends in
Ecology & Evolution 19, no. 7 (July 1, 2004): 372–378, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16701288/.
37. Tautz, “Evolutionary Origin.”
38. Sih, “Behavioral Syndromes.”
94 TELICOM 38, No. 2 — Second Quarter 2026
39. “What Are Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs)?” MedlinePlus,
https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/understanding/genomicresearch/snp/.
40. L. Dean, “Blood Groups and Red Cell Antigens,” National Center for Biotechnology Information
(2005), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK2269/.
41. Ibid.
42. Ibid.
43. André Flores-Bello et al., “Sequence Diversity of the Rh Blood Group System in Basques,”
European Journal of Human Genetics 26, no. 12 (August 2018),
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6244411/.
44. Dean, “Blood Groups.”
45. George H. Perry et al., “Evolutionary Genetics of the Human Rh Blood Group System,” Human
Genetics 131, no. 7 (February 2012): 1205–1216, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3378649/;
Pol-André Apoil and Antoine Blancher, “Rh Gene Evolution in Primates: Study of Intron Sequences,”
Molecular Biology and Evolution 17, no. 1 (January 2000): 127–136,
https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/17/1/127/975586.
46. Franz Wagner and Willy Flegel, “RHD Gene Deletion Occurred in the Rhesus Box,” Blood 95, no.
12 (June 2000): 3662–3668, doi:10.1182/blood.V95.12.3662.
47. Ibid.
48. George H. Perry et al., “Evolutionary Genetics of the Human Rh Blood Group System,” Human
Genetics 131 (February 2012): 1205–1216, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00439-012-1147-5.
49. Ibid.
50. Paola Binda et al., “Pupil Constrictions to Photographs of the Sun,” Journal of Vision 13, no. 6 (May
2013): 1–11, https://jov.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2121823.
51. Ibid.
52. Anthony Vipin Das et al., “Solar Retinopathy in India: Clinical Presentation and Demographic
Distribution in 253 Patients (349 Eyes),” Indian Journal of Ophthalmology 71, no. 5 (May 2023):
2061–2065, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37203081/; Mohammad Jourieh, “Solar Retinopathy: A
Literature Review,” Oman Journal of Ophthalmology 17, no. 2 (June 2024): 173–180,
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11309525/.
53. Arnoldus Schytte Blix, “Adaptations to Polar Life in Mammals and Birds,” The Journal of
Experimental Biology 219, no. 8 (2016): 1093–1105, https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.120477.
54. Trevor D. Lamb et al., “Evolution of the Vertebrate Eye: Opsins, Photoreceptors, Retina and Eye
Cup,” Nature Reviews Neuroscience 8, no. 12 (2007): 960–976,
https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn2283.
TELICOM 38, No. 2 — Second Quarter 2026 95
55. Stephen C. Stearns et al., “Evolutionary Perspectives on Health and Medicine,” Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences 107, supl. 1 (January 2010): 1691–1695, https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/261898786_Evolutionary_Perspectives_on_Health_and_Medicine.
56. Brian L. Diffey, “Solar Ultraviolet Radiation Effects on Biological Systems,” Physics in Medicine &
Biology 36, no. 3 (1991): 299–328, https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0031-9155/36/3/001.
57. Nina Jablonski, “The Evolution of Human Skin and Skin Color,” Annual Review of Anthropology 33
(2004): 585–623, https://www.jstor.org/stable/25064866.
58. Diffey, “Solar Ultraviolet Radiation Effects.”
59. Michael F. Holick et al., “Vitamin D and Skin Physiology: A D-Lightful Story,” Journal of Bone and
Mineral Research 22, no. S2 (Dec 2009), V28–V33, doi:10.1359/jbmr.07s211.
60. Jablonski, “The Evolution of Human Skin.”
61. Holick, “Vitamin D and Skin Physiology.”
62. Jablonski, “The Evolution of Human Skin.”
63. Laure Ségurel and Céline Bon, “On the Evolution of Lactase Persistence in Humans,”
Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 18 (2017): 297–319,
https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-genom-091416-035340.
64. Connie M. Weaver et al., “Calcium Plus Vitamin D Supplementation and Risk of Fractures: An
Updated Meta-Analysis from the National Osteoporosis Foundation,” Osteoporosis International 27,
no. 1 (Oct 2015): 367–376, doi:10.1007/s00198-015-3386-5.
65. Ibid.
66. Daniel L. Gebo, “Primate Locomotion,” Knowledge Project, Nature Education Knowledge 4, no. 8
(2013), https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/primate-locomotion-105284696/.
67. Ibid.
68. Erik Trinkaus, “Modern Human Versus Neandertal Evolutionary Distinctiveness,” Current
Anthropology 47, no. 4 (August 2006), 597–620,
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/504165?journalCode=ca; Kristi Lynn Lewton,
“Locomotor Function and the Evolution of the Primate Pelvis,” Arizona State University, PhD
Dissertation (2010), https://sites.bu.edu/kristilewton/files/2014/01/Lewton-Dissertation-2010.pdf.
69. Ségurel, “On the Evolution.”
70. Weaver, “Calcium Plus Vitamin D.”
71. R. McNeill Alexander, Principles of Animal Locomotion (Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press, 2003).
72. Trinkaus, “Modern Human”; Lewton, “Locomotor Function.”
73. Alexander, Principles of Animal Locomotion.
96 TELICOM 38, No. 2 — Second Quarter 2026
74. Dennis M. Bramble and Daniel E. Lieberman, “Endurance Running and the Evolution of
Homo,” Nature 432, no. 7015 (November 2004): 345–352, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15549097/.
75. Alexander, Principles of Animal Locomotion.
76. Ibid.
77. Trinkaus, “Modern Human”; Lewton, “Locomotor Function.”
78. Larry R. Squire, Fundamental Neuroscience 4th ed. (London, England: Academic Press, 2012); Niko
Tinbergen, The Study of Instinct (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1951).
79. Henry M. Streby et al., “Tornadic Storm Avoidance Behavior in Breeding Songbirds,” Current
Biology 25, no. 1 (January 2015): 98–102,
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982214014286; Zenon J. Czenze and Craig K.
R. Willis, “Warming Up and Shipping Out: Arousal and Emergence Timing in Hibernating Little Brown
Bats (Myotis lucifugus),” Journal of Comparative Physiology B 185 (March 2015): 575–586,
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00360-015-0900-1; Caitlin E. O’Connell-Rodwell, “Keeping
an ‘Ear' to the Ground: Seismic Communication in Elephants,” Physiology 22 (Aug 2007): 287–294,
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17699882/.
80. Katharine Milton, “Diet and Primate Evolution,” Scientific American 269, no. 2 (August 1993):
86–93; Richard W. Wrangham, Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human (New York, NY: Basic
Books, 2009).
81. “Dietary Supplements: What You Need to Know,” Office of Dietary Supplements, National Institutes
of Health, https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/WYNTK-Consumer/.
82. Peter Ungar, “Why Are Human Teeth So Messed Up?” SAPIENS: Anthropology Magazine (July
2017), www.sapiens.org/biology/human-teeth-evolution/.
83. Matt Sponheimer and Julia A. Lee-Thorp, “Isotopic Evidence for the Diet of an Early Hominid,
Australopithecus africanus,” Science 283, no. 5400 (January 1999): 368–370,
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.283.5400.368.
84. David Wingate, “Comparative Physiology of the Vertebrate Digestive System,” Gut 30, no. 7 (July
1989): 1029, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1434276/.
85. Ungar, “Why Are Human Teeth So Messed Up?”
86. Charles Stevens and Ian Hume, Comparative Physiology of the Vertebrate Digestive System (New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1995); “Small/Large Intestine Length Ratio,” CARTA: Museum
of Comparative Anthropogeny, carta.anthropogeny.org/moca/topics/smalllarge-intestine-length-ratio.
87. Shunji Fujimori, “Gastric Acid Level of Humans Must Decrease in the Future,” World Journal of
Gastroenterology 26, no. 43 (November 2020): 6706–6709, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33268958/.
88. Scratcherd Tim, “Comparative Physiology of the Vertebrate Digestive System 2nd ed. By C. Edward
Stevens and Ian D. Hume,” Experimental Physiology 81, no. 6 (November 1996): 1048–1049.
TELICOM 38, No. 2 — Second Quarter 2026 97
89. Ungar, “Why Are Human Teeth So Messed Up?”
90. Sponheimer, “Isotopic evidence.”
91. G. E. Folk and H. A. Semken, “The Evolution of Sweat Glands,” International Journal of
Biometeorology 35, no. 3 (November 1991): 180–186, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1778649/.
92. Timothy D. Weaver and Jean‐Jacques Hublin, “Neandertal Birth Canal Shape and the Evolution of
Human Childbirth,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106, no. 20 (May 2009): 8151–
8156, https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0812554106.
93. Ibid.
94. Ibid.
95. Mihaela Pavličev et al., “Evolution of the Human Pelvis and Obstructed Labor: New Explanations
of an Old Obstetrical Dilemma,” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 222, no. 1 (January
2020): 3–16, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31251927/.
96. Barry A. Bogin, Patterns of Human Growth 3rd ed. (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press,
2020).
97. Jean-Jacques Hublin et al., “Brain Ontogeny and Life History in Pleistocene Hominins,”
Philosophical Transactions B 370, no. 1663 (March 2015), https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rstb/
article/370/1663/20140062/22478/Brain-ontogeny-and-life-history-in-Pleistocene.
98. Emma Murrugarra and Michael H. Goldstein, “The Influence of Infantile Cues on Motivated
Perception of Threats Among Caregivers,” Acta Psychologica 254 (April 2025),
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39923550/.
99. Hublin, “Brain Ontogeny.”
100. Murrugarra, “The Influence of Infantile Cues.”
101. Rajeet S., “Why Babies Are Born Helpless,” Amalgamate (June 19, 2020),
medium.com/amalgamate./why-human-babies-are-born-helpless-6d7da2605f9d.
102. Wenda R. Trevathan, Human Birth: An Evolutionary Perspective (Piscataway, NJ: Aldine de
Gruyter, 1987).
103. Benjamin Lecorps et al., “Captivity-Induced Depression in Animals,” Trends in Cognitive
Sciences 25, no. 7 (July 2021): 539–541.
104. Toni DeAngelis, “The Genetic Dawn of Mental Illness,” Monitor on Psychology 44, no. 3 (March
2013): 26, www.apa.org/monitor/2013/03/mental-illness.
105. Ibid.
106. Sih, “Behavioral Syndromes.”
107. Ibid.
98 TELICOM 38, No. 2 — Second Quarter 2026
108. R. Avitsur and R. Yirmiya, “The Immunobiology of Sexual Behavior: Gender Differences in the
Suppression of Sexual Activity During Illness,” Pharmacology, Biochemistry, and Behavior 64, no. 4
(December 1999): 787–796, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10593202/.
109. Geoffrey F. Miller, The Mating Mind: How Sexual Choice Shaped the Evolution of Human Nature
(Palatine, IL: Anchor Books, 2001).
110. Gordon Gallup, “Self-Recognition in Primates: A Comparative Approach to the Bidirectional
Properties of Consciousness,” American Psychologist 32, no. 5 (1977): 329–338.
111. Miller, The Mating Mind.
112. Gallup, “Self-Recognition in Primates.”
113. Ibid.
114. Miller, The Mating Mind.
115. Ibid.
116. Miller, The Mating Mind; Gallup, “Self-Recognition in Primates.”
117. Richard Wrangham, Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence (Boston, MA:
Mariner Books, 1997).
118. Ibid.
119. Ibid.
120. Edward Wilson, The Future of Life (New York, NY: Vintage Books, 2002).
121. Ibid.
122. Sih, “Behavioral Syndromes.”
123. Wilson, The Future of Life. Ω
“I really think this species
is a foolish, failed species
that has organized itself poorly.”
—George Carlin