Eja, this is a response to some of the information you stated in your post.

You said:

"There are, among present day caucasians, ones who are red-headed. These are said to be the closest in genetic terms to the neanderthals. As you said, every human physical feature known on Earth (from the epicanthic fold to the straightened hair) is present among indigenous African peoples. There are variations within a general framework, but what is common remains the same. There has never been anything said to show how the red-head is of a different 'race' from other caucasians, therefore, if the red-head is part-neanderthal, all caucasians are part neanderthal."

>>> There seems to be lot of negative stereotyping when it comes to Neanderthals. There is a multitude of DNA evidence that points to little if any interbreeding between Neanderthals and earlier modern humans. Even if there was interbreeding why is it automatically considered that Neanderthals were so terrible? What is the evidence that makes them the bad guys in this scenario?

Letter From New York: The New Neandertal
http://www.archaeology.org/0507/etc/letter.html

Red Hair research
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2002/10/0 4/ecfhair04.xml&sSheet=/connected/2002/10/04/ixconn.html

You said:

"We are now witnessing changes in climate and from what we are seeing, we can deduce how long the kind of changes that turned what were once temperate regions into iced up regions to occur. This kind of drastic change must have happenned at the very least over a few centuries. Why did these Africans not find more suitable habitation? Were they lost or were they just stupid? Or did they have valuable material objects that they were unwilling to leave behind? Great cities that they could not bring themselves to abandon?

>>> A major volcanic eruption or impact of meteorites would have resulted in swift cooling in areas due to the amount of ash generated effectively blocking the sun. This would result in the area and people being cut off from escape with the only choice being adapting to the environment.

The Mount Toba Volcanic Super Eruption
http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/toba2.html

>>> Melanin plays a key factor in skin color along with certain vitamins and the ability to metabolize them.

The Biology of Skin Color: Black and White
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/07/3/text_pop/l_073_04.html

You said:

"No. These early people were part (or wholly) nomadic. To wander in search of better surroundings would have been thier natural impulse. The only reason beings would have stayed in a cold world was because that was the world they were best adapted to. Because, that was the world they were created into."

>>> Using Antartica as an example to explore an Ice Age environment, there are estimates that Antarctica as we know it today was formed around 25 million years ago, it is known there are no permanent human residents and Antarctica has never had an indigenous population. Only cold adapted plants and animals survive. The flora that is native to Antartica is limited to mosses and liverwarts which are the earliest models of plants. Land fauna is nearly completely invertebrate. This indicates evolution in a frozen environment is painstakingly and extremely slow. With this in mind, as you suggest "that was the world they were created into" refers to humans evolved out of frozen environments. It seems evident there is not really a possibility that humans were created in such conditions.

Antarctica
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica#Flora_and_fauna

You said:

"The conservative estimates claim that the 'ice age' lasted for several tens of thousands of years. Time enough for another species to emerge. The idea that Africans became trapped behind ice can only hold if we assign certain mental faculties to those Africans. Ancient humans knew more about reading nature than we do now, and to think they would'nt have realised what was happenning and made thier way back towards more SUITABLE environments does not make sense."

>>> Migrations, movements of large numbers of people would not have been easy. When a migration took place due to survival expansions as the result of inhospitable conditions (floods, droughts, unsustainable population increases etc.) groups were migrating to a more hospitable environment. Even if they were able to return, what knowledge would they have that they would be returning to what would be considered more hospitable?

GENETICS AND HUMAN MIGRATION PATTERNS
http://www.duerinck.com/migrate.html

You said:

"There is, as I believe you know, also another hypothesis concerning the origins of the human species. One that is based on the fact that there is no INCONTROVERTIBLE proof that all of humanity stepped out of one solitary hole. Nothing to say that other sets of Black peoples did not emerge autonomously in Asia or even Australia."

>>> There are two competing theories to explain how mankind spread across the globe. One is that modern humans (homo sapiens) originated, evolved and migrated out of Africa about 100,000 to 200,000 years ago. The other suggests simultaneously man arose in Asia, Africa and Europe from the African predecessor Homo erectus who left Africa approximately 2 million years ago. Either way the evidence still acknowledge humanities African origin and migrations.

Genetic study roots humans in Africa
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1058484.stm

>>> If I am understanding, you are proposing that basically people were in various locations independantly (autonomously) popping up and adapting to whatever environmental conditions they were exposed to. If I am getting your theory as you are presenting it, could you provide evidence to support that conclusion?

You said:

"Now, there is nothing to suggest that the neanderthal did not itself emerge autonomously from the regions where the Sun was less dominant. After all, trees cover the Earth, trees have much in common but does that mean all trees were grown from the one same seed? Likewise, there are fish that are found only in rivers. How did they get there? Did the oceans reverse and wash them up?

And if you look at how nature works, you will see that things are created in a way that permits them to best adapt to the environment they were created in. In regions where the Sun is all-powerful, it can be expected that the beings made for those regions would be ones whose attributes provided the best protection."

>>> Genetic and fossilized evidence does uphold the migrations of people as well as plants. You have alluded to spontaneous creation of similar forms independantly but what can you show to support that theory?

Trees (plants) do share a common ancestry in charophytes.

THE ORIGIN OF PLANTS AND COLONIZATION OF THE LAND
http://www.slic.wsu.edu/bios/biol106/Lecture06notes.pdf

>>> In Africa 40,000 years ago scientists estimate the population at around 40,000. It seems unlikely that one group of people could have been forced out given the amount of land that would have been available to such a small population. There would have been plenty of room for an ostracized group to regroup within the land mass of Africa. There is no evidence of support and even whites do not promote a "forced out of Africa" theory.

Genetic study roots humans in Africa
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1058484.stm

*In a previous post the question was asked "why the Innuit who have lived in iced up regions for millenia do not have pointy noses or pink skin." (http://www.rastafarispeaks.com/cgi-bin/forum/config.pl?noframes;read=76021)

>>> Here are some extracts and links that could provide some basic explanation.

Biologically, culturally and linguistically the Inuvialuit are Inuit, closely related to all other Inuit people living across the top of the North American continent from Bering Strait to east Greenland. All share a recent common origin in a culture which archaeologists call "Thule" which arose in northwestern Alaska about 1100 years ago.

http://www.civilization.ca/aborig/inuvial/thulee.html

Dorset culture came to an end at a time when the Dorset people had expanded to a larger area than they had ever occupied, were producing vast numbers of carvings and other works of art, and were building large longhouse structures. How can we explain this apparently rapid and total disappearance of a way of life that had survived for over 3,000 years?

In the centuries around A.D. 1000, the Arctic climate was becoming significantly warmer than it had been since the development of the Dorset culture. Warmer summers would have produced changes in the movements of the animals on which Dorset hunters depended, and there must have been rapid and unexpected shifts in the amount and distribution of sea ice and open water. Disruptions in their usual patterns of hunting and travel must have created hardship, and even distress, for many of the small Dorset communities of the Arctic world.

At the same time, and perhaps in response to the warmer climate and greater extent of open water, other peoples began to expand into the country of the Dorset people. Indian groups reclaimed Newfoundland and the forested coasts of Labrador. The Norse established colonies in Greenland and paid occasional visits to the Eastern Arctic. From the west, ancestral Inuit moved from Alaska into the heart of the Dorset homeland.

A changing environment, the advance of Indians, Inuit and Europeans, and perhaps the introduction of diseases to which the isolated Dorset people had no immunity, must have placed enormous stress on the small indigenous population of Arctic Canada. It is tempting to see the increase of artistic activity in the Late Dorset period as reflecting attempts to control an increasingly unpredictable environment through religious and magical means.

Although Indian groups reclaimed Newfoundland and southern Labrador, they were not interested in the tundra areas to the north. The Norse occasionally visited Baffin Island and Labrador, and must have occasionally traded with Dorset people, but they never expanded from their farming colonies on the southwestern coast of Greenland. For the Alaskan Inuit, however, a period of climatic warming and increased open water turned the Eastern Arctic into a tempting region in which to hunt and live.

The Inuit brought with them from Alaska the tools and weapons of a sophisticated maritime hunting culture that had developed in the rich waters of the Bering Sea. Capable of hunting animals as large as the bowhead whale, the largest creature in the Arctic seas, the Inuit could support much larger communities than was possible for the Dorset people. These communities were extremely mobile, travelling during the summer in large skin-covered boats ten metres or more in length, and in winter by sleds pulled by teams of well-fed dogs. The Inuit had little trouble expanding rapidly throughout the Arctic world, and as part of this process the Dorset way of life disappeared.

The Dorset people vanish from the archaeological record at some time between about A.D. 1200 and 1500.

http://www.civilization.ca/archeo/paleoesq/pec01eng.html

The Arctic was the last large region of the habitable world to be occupied by humans. The ancestors of American Indians passed through the Western Arctic near the end of the last ice age, as they expanded from Asia to America. However, their descendants never developed ways of life that allowed them to live throughout the year far to the north of the forests.

Hunting peoples of northeastern Siberia seem to have been the first to master the Arctic environment. About 5,000 years ago, some of these peoples crossed Bering Strait from Siberia to what is now Alaska. The crossing was probably made on winter ice, which forms a dangerous and unstable bridge between Asia and America. Over a period of several generations, they expanded across Arctic North America and became the first to explore this huge region of the northern world. By 4,000 years ago, their descendants had spread out to occupy all of Arctic North America, as far north as Greenland and as far south as Labrador. Archaeologists call these peoples Palaeo-Eskimos, a name that means "Old Eskimos." In Inuit traditions, they are known as "Tunit." For over 3,000 years, in isolation from the rest of the world, they developed a unique and intriguing way of life.

http://www.civilization.ca/archeo/paleoesq/pef01eng.html

>>> There is a book that has been suggested, "The History of Life" by Richard Cowen which can assist in getting some of the biological evolution sorted out. Also, very insightful information is available at http://www.howcomyoucom.com.