The chimp/Homo hybrid is here represented by a reconstruction made on the basis of the Homo floresiensis skull which could well be such a hybrid.
Why did modern humans emerge so late in Africa compared to Eurasia?
It's a fact that modern humans seem to have arrived very late to Africa. There are no tracks whatsoever (not even indicative ones) before some 20-26,000 years ago (when the first mongoloids, the Khoisan etc ancestors, arrived from Asia) whereas in Euarasia modern humans emerged already more than 40,000 years ago. However, due to political correctness this indisputable fact is hidden by all possible means.
So why was Africa lacking modern humans?
Your best answer is Klevius' Out of Africa as "pygmies" and back again as global "mongoloids"! And it's been available on the net since 2004!
For you who don't master anthropology, or if you're an anthropologist but stupid and/or too full of racist emotions, you might consider that what is often called "moderns" in charlatan writings also contains so called archaic specimens, sometimes so primitive that they are closer to erectus or Neandertals than to modern humans. The South African Hofmeyr skull (see map above) is used to boost African racism. However, the Hofmeyr skull reveals heavily archaic features as does the South European Oase skull. Moreover, the Hofmeyr skull lacks connection to anything cultural on the level of Eurasia at the same time. These kind of skulls hence have nothing to do with modern humans, especially when it comes to their brain performance! Oase might or might not have come from the south whereas truly moderns (according to Klevius and according to genetics) of whom we so far have no clue how their skulls looked like developed in the northern or mid-Eurasia! And that they first spread westward has to do with geography and climate.
According to Peter Klevius theory "Out of Africa as pygmies and back as global mongoloids", what we used to call Homo is an evolutionary line that became human only after late hybridization with Pan(?).
Fossil records clearly reveal that the Homo policy of enlarging the brain case wasn't enough to enter humanlike behavior. Only when small bi-pedal pygmy Homos got a more sophisticated brain from dwarfed jungle apes (Pan?) were they able to transfer this feature to their bigger (but dumb) family members. The critical point was when the pygmy chimp(?) successfully fertilized pygmy Homos without endangering the latter's possibilities to transmit the new genetic constellation (e.g. a reversed and detached chromosome). The primary result may have looked something like Homo floresiensis (a pity we don't have genetic material thanks to islam in the form of the pathetic Indonesian "professor" Teuku Jakob, who stole and destroyed much of the material) before it transformed into modern humans (Mongoloids in the North and Negritos in the South).
Human-Chimp chromosomal comparison
For those less familiar with hybridization pls see postings below!
The final trim of the new human was made in cold but protein rich Siberia/Eurasia where adaptation created mongoloid physical features (incl so called "primitive" mongoloid features such as e.g. bigger noses etc) and sophisticated Aurignacian cultural features (Aurignacian was the most advanced technology of its time and originated outside Africa). This was the birth of humans in a modern sense!
When the successful Mongoloids started to populate the world they of course met with the less developed Homos with whom they interbred and shaped, more or less, the rest of us in a variety of shapes and colors. Mongoloids and Australoids are hence the most mutually unlike because whereas Africa had a strong back migration of mongoloids Australia due to its location came to be less involved. This is also why the so called Caucasoid race (in a broad sense) came to populate what in Klevius terminology is called the "bastard belt" (the gray area on the map).
This basic idea Klevius hypothized abt in 1991 when he wrote Demand for Resources - on the right to be poor (1992). However, it was only in May 2004 (but before he knew abt Homo floresiensis), after having for long considered the new territory that recent genetics had revealed, he went public on the web with Out of Africa as "pygmies" and back as global "mongoloids". No basic changes has been made to the page since (except for some comments on Homo floresiensis). Klevius is still waiting for the essence of the theory to be laughable before he does anything. No one seems to laugh so far (except out of ignorance or picky "scientific" feeble mindedness). But for those who can read and think the theory is out there for use or refutation! One clever essential objection and Klevius will change parts of it or everything!
Debbie Argue et al have done a good job in comparing Homo floresiensis with other Homos but they make the wrong conclusion because hybridization could create a similar effect, much more recently, and explaining all loose ends.
This irrefutable art track in Northern Eurasia has no contemporary equivalent in other parts of the world. Based on what we know now it had no fore bearers whatsoever in any period of time. Moreover, it seems that there was even a decline before "civilizations" started tens of thousands of years later! Yet Klevius seems to be only one addressing this most interesting (besides genetics) fact!