/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10758497
The african and asian method.

>>10758497
Neanderthals lived in smaller social groups. Sapiens outnumbered them.

I wish I could meet them.

With arrows probably. I wonder who was the aggressor though

>>10758497
There are still small rests of neandethalian DNA in some people. Maybe the smart, tall sapien was more attractive for their women.
Also:
>>10758521
>>10758530

>>10758497
Greater numbers, better ability to coordinate hunting and battle tactics with language

>>10758497
Anyone who asserts one particular possible explanation for this as though it were some confirmed answer is retarded. Nobody knows as of today.

>>10758629
All I know is that I’m denied contact with our hominid brothers by the genocidal ambitions of my ancestors.

>>10758497
Sapiens are more violent.

>>10758497
Didn't we have better endurance for persistence hunting? I'd heard they would have overheated quicker and had to rest more than us, and we just jogged after prey continuously until it dropped from exhaustion.

>>10758497
Perhaps they couldn't build muscle? Contrary to popular belief, initial muscle size and response to exercise are not governed by the same genes (correlation 0.08 between initial fitness and response to exercise, assuming the subjects did not exercises before. Also, girls who work out are stronger than me despite being initially smaller than me). So perhaps they had bigger muscle base but couldn't build muscle, so they lost when exercising was invented

>>10758497
>trusting artist renditions
they literally starting making them look like white people once they figured out the neanderthal dna distributions.

>>10758497
Grugdolph Smashler got all the homo sapiens all riled up about “Make Cave Great Again” and it took off from there

More robust = need more calories = starved to death in winter

>>10758497
Ice fucking age.

>>10759416
Hilarious allusion to Hitler and Trump, man. I, too, have an IQ below my body temperature and find such Reddit humor stimulating.

Kill yourself.

>>10759373

>>10759431
This map seems false
I remember being told that Australian aboriginals and sub-Saharan Africans have no neanderthal DNA

>>10759552
ye, australia have high denisovans dna irc, it might be denisovan/neanderthal graph.

>>10758497

>>10759552
>>10759563
oh lol, theres the denisovan legend

>>10758497
We have no idea what happened to them or the other higher hominids. We don't even know where we came from, data is emerging that Africa may not have even been our origin in any meaningful sense. The mere existence of new world primates which also lack a functional CMAH gene, and thus neu5gc, indicates this. It irritates me to no end to see this glossed over like it just magically developed independently. And how the hell did they get there, anyway?

No. Our history has clearly been altered deliberately. This was done by the British and the Romans. It's also why the Gaelic language and Ireland is so mysterious, and why there seems to be a concerted effort to make us see the Irish as monoculture starved fetal alcohol syndrome subhumans that were almost better off taken by Jewish slavers. Hidden there, is a rich history and prior advanced civilizations. Ireland may be origin of the Phoenicians.

I have an Irish last name, though we don't look all; that Irish. I do feel I need to go there. To where it began.

>>10758497
By being smarter I guess

>>10759564
They don't know shit about what brain region did what, lol. Mosaicism has broken down for primates many times. Take dolphins for example, imagine finding a fossil and trying to figure out what its brain was without any comparison. You'd miss completely that it had entire structures mammals do not.

>>10759595
that other* mammals do not

Sleep deprived caffeine posting. You get the point.

>>10758730
>Didn't we have better endurance for persistence hunting?
That's one of a variety of ideas people have come up with. There isn't one known right answer and I really wish people would stop responding to threads like this with "IT WAS X" like the random idea they read about in a pop sci article last year somehow put the issue to rest.

>>10759582
>We don't even know where we came from, data is emerging that Africa may not have even been our origin in any meaningful sense.

Post sources to this data please.

>>10758497
How can you still be a fucking darwinist

>>10758497
God I wish I had a BNC to suck

Nobody beat anyone. They got BLACKED.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/ancient-dna-and-neanderthals/interbreeding

>>10759431
To add to that map, some more recent dna studies show that sub-saharan populations mixed with at least two differnt hominids. One of the ghost hominids intermixed with the ancestors of west Africans, the other with the ancestors of the pygmies & bushmen. Unfortunately much of Africa is poor place to find presvered fossils, so learning more about hominids may be impossible.

>>10758497
Overspecialize and you breed in weakness.

>>10759552
>>10759563
the absolute state of /sci/

>>10759775
"Like individual like organization, overspecialization leads to death."

>>10758497
>yfw it just hits you that all those dwarves you read about in fantasy stories are actually supposed to represent neanderthals

>>10758497
This is a retarded question, OP.
The widely accepted theory is that when they interbred human woman where able to give birth to neanderthal children whereas neanderthal woman where not able to birth homosapien children.
The eventually neanderthals where bred out

>>10759582
What the fuck are you smoking?

>>10759850
The truth. You however have been smoking the lies.

>>10759582
>No. Our history has clearly been altered deliberately.

>>10759867
I've got nerves of steel.

>>10759848
that theory is bullshit since neanderthals had the same number of chromosomes

>>10759890
also
>human woman where able to give birth to neanderthal children whereas neanderthal woman where not able to birth homosapien children.
that's not even how hybridization works

Neanderthal were seen as animals and hunted down until extinction, like most exctinct animals that happened to share a common ecosystem with humans

>>10759890
>>10759892
it's given credence by the fact no neanderthal y chromosome exists and all mitochondrial dna is from homo sapiens

>>10759919
They were actually plucked from this planet when they reached the brink of extinction, and were placed on their own planet.

They may have also been a formidable predator of early man.

>>10758497
>They were clearly more robust than us. How did we beat them?

They are not gone, we assimilated them.
Most of humanity carries some Neanderthal genes.

Sapiens outnumbered them and bred with them. Sapien females can not bear the crossbreeds, but Neanderthal females could. In time the number of pure Neanderthal vanished.

>>10759925
You've been watching too much Stargate.

>>10759595
Occipital lobe

>without any comparison
Humans and other primates are great comparisons

>>10760056
Neanderthals ARE humans

>>10760085
*were

>>10758497
They lived in smaller groups so knowledge didn't flow as easily
They needed more food to maintain their body
They were strong enough to fight animals with less reliance on gear than humans
While they did have larger brains, a portion of that would need to be used dealing with the larger muscle mass, especially if they were as dexterous and precise as humans

>>10758736
/thread

>>10758686
No. The nomad/warrior 7R DRD4 gene is very likely inherited from them, as there is no simple way it could evolve from the older 4R gene and there are no variants inbetween in current populations.

>>10759373
>they literally starting making them look like white people once they figured out the neanderthal dna distributions.

Most of the reconstructions are completely wrong anyway. Foreheads are specific to h. sapiens. Neanderthals are reconstructed with their skulls looking down, to give the appearance of forehead and reduce the depth of their face compared to modern humans. Even some modern humans with strong neanderthal admixture had those traits, see wolf robe on the picture.

>>10759923
That just means no unbroken patrilineal or matrilineal neanderthal lineage survived to the present day for whatever reason.
You can't just make shit up. There's no biological reason why neanderthal women couldn't give birth to hybrids. Haldane's rule predicts that male hybrids (regardless of parentage) would be more likely to be sterile, which would explain the lack of Y lineages, but the mechanism is poorly understood and it's not clear it would apply at all in such close species (because there is no karyotype mismatch, because humans and neanderthals were "just" like 20k generations apart, etc)

>>10759373
>they literally starting making them look like white people once they figured out the neanderthal dna distributions.

Most of the reconstructions are completely wrong anyway. Foreheads are specific to h. sapiens. Neanderthals are reconstructed with their skulls looking down, to give the appearance of forehead and reduce the depth of their face compared to modern humans. Even some modern humans with strong neanderthal admixture have those traits, see wolf robe on the picture.

>>10758736
That's a far as fuck stretch. Why can't you just say they were stupid?

>>10760182
>Neanderthals are known for their large cranial capacity, which at 1,600 cm3 (98 cu in) is larger on average than that of modern humans. One study has found that drainage of the dural venous sinuses (low pressure blood vessels that run between the meninges and skull leading down through the skull) in the occipital lobe region of Neanderthal brains appears more asymmetric than other hominid brains.[62] Three-dimensional computer-assisted reconstructions of Neanderthal infants based on fossils from Russia and Syria indicated that Neanderthal and modern human brains were the same size at birth, but that by adulthood, the Neanderthal brain was larger than the modern human brain.[63] They had almost the same degree of encephalisation (i.e. brain-to-body-size ratio) as modern humans.[64][65]

>>10760187
Which corresponds to their larger eyes and and larger occipital lobes

Also a globular shape is more important than volume. You don't know shit about anthropology.

>>10759564
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/12/why-modern-humans-have-round-heads

>>10758497
I'm pretty sure it's something to do with neandethals using spears to stab things instead of throwing it like sapiens.

>>10760195
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2018/09/21/neanderthal-brains-bigger-but-not-necessarily-better/

>>10760195
if there are racial differences in intelligence where did they come from?

>>10760195
>Which corresponds to their larger eyes
Eyes are not counted in crainal capacity. I don't think that people with better eyesight are dumber, in fact the majority of people who are born blind are also autistic.
>and and larger occipital lobes
And?
>Also a globular shape is more important than volume. You don't know shit about anthropology.
Are modern people with more elongated brains more stupid, or is it post hoc ergo propter hoc?

>>10760200
That article explains why that extra brain volume might not matter, it doesn't explain why neanderthal would be dumber

>>10760216
You don't know shit either. Look up the source study on>>10759564

>>10758672
LOL where the fuck do you think the genocidal ambitions came from? it's evolution. shit's k.

>>10760274
>LOL where the fuck do you think the genocidal ambitions came from? it's evolution. shit's k.

>Making an appeal to nature fallacy

Rape is natural. Go rape.

>>10758497
intelligence

>>10758497
We fucked them out of existence.

If you can't beat them, beat them off.

>>10760286
Shit's k bro. There's ugly shit in us all with varying levels of intensities, variables and elements between individuals. It's a crazy world. We seem to be in control now.

Homo sapiens found out that you could throw spears at dangerous stuff rather than run up and stick the spear in it. Meanwhile the Neanderthals rather liked to run into their prey and shove the spear into it.

Essentially, its like if you put the 300 spartans vs 900 mongol horse archers. The spartans would tear them apart in hand to hand combat, yet the horse archers could just keep running and firing inflicting losses upon the Spartans as they go. Having more muscles and biggers mass doesnt do shit if you cant even reach your target.

>>10758521
saaaaame

>>10760372
Nice explanation. How do you know?

>>10758521
Go to pakistan and look for the barmanou, maybe you still can meet them
Read Jordi Magraner's research

>>10758497
The real question is, why are Homo sapiens the only human species that still exists?

>>10760453
Because there is a social pressure against classifying some races as different species.

>>10760453
We’re not sure, but apparently the others were just outcompeted and integrated via hybridization. Neanderthals, Denisovans, and red deer cave people, who may be hybrids of sapiens and denisovans, a different species, or just weird-looking sapiens, survived until relatively recently in geological terms. We may be able to speciate in the future but I expect globalization and especially genetic engineering to throw a serious monkey wrench into that.

>>10760460
Current human diversity does not include multiple species under any species concept.

we can barely tolerate each other.


how could sapiens coexist with other humans?

>>10760476
bigot

>>10760490
Not an argument.

Larger brain doesn't always mean smarter. I brains are already notably smaller than out ancestors. Wolves brains are larger than domestic dogs. I'd wager. Larger brains had more to do with raw processing speed in relation to size. Lower intelligence and harsher life requires fast reaction times. You need to be able to process information quickly and react quickly instead of having the luxury of mulling over it intelligently. I'd imagine from a cold start a neanderthal would wreck a person in a straight up fight even without the physical advantages. We are the batman to their bane. LOL We need prep time.

>>10760504
>Wolves brains are larger than domestic dogs.

Wolves are much smarter than domestic dogs.

>>10760504

>>10760505
It depends entirely on how you measure intelligence.

>>10760504
>our brains are already notably smaller than out ancestors.
Why do you assume that we are smarter ?

>>10760523
Great question. I think we're becoming more knowledgeable than intelligent.

>>10758562
>There are still small rests of neandethalian DNA in some people
One anon here claimed he had 6.5% Neanderthal genes. That is about twice of what I heard was the upper end of the normal scale.

>>10759552
>I remember being told that Australian aboriginals and sub-Saharan Africans have no neanderthal DNA
That was changed once it was determined Neanderthal genes could be beneficial, and we got the back to Africa-theory.

>>10758629
this
no one really knows.

>>10760505
>>10760523

He's basically saying that higher raw intelligence isn't always better. It's more about the application and it's relevance to the current environment. It's more than likely that Neanderthals had lower social intelligence on top of slower reaction speed and that made them ill-suited for more dynamic co-operation. Neanderthals could have easily been better than us in visual abstract thinking and/or pattern spacial awareness. But if they couldn't socialize better than us than it means fuck all in a match between the two.

It's similar to comparing a human calculator with a person who knows a couple of coding languages. In terms of relevance and economical need the code monkey is going to be more successful due to the times.

>>10758497
Luck, no really thats the only way to explain it. They had IQs in the low 90s and were stronger than us, its a miracle we won.

>>10758497
Neanderthals were rescued and placed on another world so that our two intelligent species could evolve and prosper. One day we may encounter each other along the celestial currents, but the unknown forefathers who divided us will have long since departed.

More advanced use of language, more numbers but also likely a more effective tactic of ranged projectiles whereas the Neanderthal would have used primarily melee weapons.

Of course its false to say that Neanderthals were dumb. There's actually evidence suggesting otherwise. There's also evidence suggesting that they weren't killed so much as the populations merged and they were subsumed into the larger group.

>>10759690

Not me you're replying to but I studied Archaeology at Uni and they don't teach Out of Africa anymore as the theory is either incorrect or is in need of revision due to modern discoveries. What is generally favoured now is a Multiple Region Hypothesis which created the modern humans through multiple waves of migrations as opposed to one movement Out of Africa and subsequent development from that. I'm not at home at the moment but you can look up the Dali skull which is the oldest human skull ever found. Of course you will have seen the relatively recent discovery in Greece in 2017-18. Also look up the jaw bone found in Israel.

The problem with Out of Africa is that its become a political tool as opposed to a theory of human evolution largely thanks to America because of the race relation problems there. It is less of an issue in Europe where I live.

>>10760609
That's not what I asked you about.

>>10760624

You didn't ask me anything, dense cunt.

>>10758497
they had smaller dicks.

>>10760453
Because when you have multiple animals trying to fill the same niche either one out competes the other, or one adapts to fill a new niche.

>>10760609
>What is generally favoured now is a Multiple Region Hypothesis
Source/evidence? I recently read a book by James Watson that didn't suggest that

>The problem with Out of Africa is that its become a political tool
How does it get used as a political tool?

>>10760709
>Source/evidence? I recently read a book by James Watson that didn't suggest that

Which book did you read?

>>10760677
What niche? Be a predator? There's plenty of those in most environments

>>10760403
>Nice explanation. How do you know?
He doesn't. He's another retard parroting one of the many possible ideas different people have come up with to try to explain Neanderthal extinction while pretending like the one he's parroting is the established one true answer.

>>10760150
How? Don't neanderthal genes correlate with intelligence? An average nerd is a warrior only in games.

>>10761064
>Don't neanderthal genes correlate with intelligence?
That is extremely controversial - and possibly true.

>>10761064
But DRD4 7R (especially homozygous) doesn't make you a nerd, but a MMA enthusiast.

>>10758497
We saw life as a struggle against ouseleves.

They saw life as a struggle against the environment.

The rest is prehistory.

>>10758497
In my opinion hominids are just very flimsy. Even Homo Sapiens almost went extinct, I'm guessing it was mostly chance that favored us.

>>10760709

You can look it to yourself it's not an esoteric topic.

James Watson is a geneticist and a biologist and is hardly the cutting edge for academic developments.

Out of Africa is abused by black nationalists in the same way that Chinese nationalists abused Peking Man.

>>10760161
maybe they just didn't physiologically survive giving birth to h. sapiens children

>>10761381
>You can look it to yourself it's not an esoteric topic.

Cite a source for the “multi regional hypothesis” being “more favored”.

Neanderthals were weak intellectual cucks, they had to be purged.

>>10761381
>Out of Africa is abused by black nationalists

How is Out of Africa abused by these so-called "black nationalist?"

>>10761402
And why would that be the case? lol

>>10760504
>>10760505
>>10760580
Yeah, it's like specialisation vs general intellect. Dogs are dumb but fitted to human emotions and activities, wolves are the opposite.

>>10760609
>they don't teach Out of Africa anymore as the theory is either incorrect or is in need of revision due to modern discoveries. What is generally favoured now is a Multiple Region Hypothesis
Utter bullshit.

>Of course you will have seen the relatively recent discovery in Greece in 2017-18.
Are you talking about that 5 millions year old ape?

>>10760609
What country are you from?

>>10761906
In what ways are dogs dumb? Because they're dependant on humans? They're easily one of the smarter animals around, definitely more intelligent than cats

>Omo 1 - H. Sapiens, ~195kya

>Shanidar 1 - H. Neanderthalensis, ~45-35kya
Just an interesting comparison

>>10761986
What are you comparing exactly?

>>10762021
The various anatomical differences between the two. I would've chosen something like Ferrassie, but I couldn't find a good pic with the jaw included

>>10759582
tell it to your psychiatrist he might need to touch up your daily dose of anti psychotics, or maybe change to anti hallucinogens

>>10761909
>Are you talking about that 5 millions year old ape?

Not even part of the clade “Homo”

>>10758497
niggers went in packs and Neanderthals were in smaller groups. You can even see this in modern times

>>10760453
.

homo sap's existence is quite temporary --

we will self-extinct w/in 500 yrs,

climate disruption for one thing &

anti-biotic resistance
.

NEFARIOUS HOMO SAPIENS

>>10760609
Kek.

https://evolutionistx.wordpress.com/2017/07/05/no-graecopithecus-does-not-prove-humans-evolved-in-europe/

https://theconversation.com/theres-not-enough-evidence-to-back-the-claim-that-humans-originated-in-europe-78280

>>10762272
Only people with a severely biased viewpoint would conclude that one ape species indicates that humans originated in Europe. It’s not even really relevant to the Out of Africa hypothesis, since that’s about HOMO SAPIENS, not humans in general.

>>10762067
What is this, a fucking beat poem? Why would you ever format a post in this way? Pure, unfiltered, liquid schizophrenia?

>>10762272
Humans originated in America. Literally. The Garden of Eden was not in Sumeria.

>>10758497
>They were clearly more robust than us.

Wrong.

Why do you assume they looked all the same ?

>>10758530
proto-anglos obviously

>>10758497
You're now thinking of neanderthal COCK.

>>10762431
Got a source there boyo?

>>10762733
Yeah buddy boy'o my ass. There you go.

Look within and you will find that it is THE TRUTH. THE TRUTH YOU HAVE ALWAYS KNOWN.

>>10762738
(Within yourself that is. Not my ass)

>>10758497

They rule us now

who predatory Neanderthal theory here?

>>10762801

>>10762807
>>10762813

I dont understand what these imply

>>10762807
What does this have to do wit the thread?

>>10758504
underrated

>>10758497
Neanderthals were not just more robust, but also more intelligent than Sapiens.

If it wasnt for Sapiens, Homo would be colonizing the galaxy right now.

>tfw autistic and have occipital bun

>>10762981
pic plz

>>10762801
I'm definitely into the ape with evil grin and bloody eyes.

>>10762807
It might have been a way to mark busts of past rulers.

I thought wikipedia was just pushing diversity in their article

then I remembered this is what the default human phenotype looks like

>>10763016
What a retarded post. What would you rather have them show? A mixed person with ancestors of every phenotype?

>>10762067
Only because we will evolve into Homo Futuris.

>>10762801
>completely inaccurate sensationalist tripe

>>10762801
his pp is smol

>>10763027
First off, if someone really has to read a Wikipedia article to recognise a human being, they have no capacity to understand the article. Most likely they have no reading comprehension.

Secondly, if you want to push diversity, you have to show, well, diversity, as in many different ethnicities and age examples. it is not as if every human being look the same, you know, right? Right?

Also the entire issue of what homo sapiens is, is getting cloudy. Europeans and Asians are probably better described as hybrids of H. Sapiens, H. Neanderthalis, H. Denisova and most likely one as yet unknown and unnamed Homo. All this in varying hybridisation. South Saharan Africans are then most likely the true appearance of Homo Sapiens.

>>10763877
You should read this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism

>>10760574
>One anon here claimed he had 6.5% Neanderthal genes. That is about twice of what I heard was the upper end of the normal scale.
grug not lying. grug really has dna.

>>10763887
>I have no idea.
>Perhaps complain about autism. On 4chan!
Brilliant.

>>10759923
Maybe human Stacies were just giant whores whereas neanderthal women actually had some dignity.

>>10765527
what did he mean by this?

>>10760476
I don't know about species, but Australian aboriginals or pygmies at the very least should definitely be considered sub-species.

>>10765546
>I don't know about species, but Australian aboriginals

Australian aboriginals are mostly pure Homo sapiens. You’d be the subspecies if anything was a subspecies in modern humanity.

>pygmies

....Why? They’re just short Africans.

>>10765555
>Australian aboriginals are mostly pure Homo sapiens. You’d be the subspecies if anything was a subspecies in modern humanity.
That's not how taxonomy works, bro.
>....Why? They’re just short Africans.
Absolute brainlet.

>>10760187
They had smaller cerebellum - even other animals with tiny cerebellums show strong lateralization. We have been evolving bigger cerebellum and recent studies show it's important for intelligence as well. In fact it seems that fluid intelligence may occur primary in the cerebellum.

>>10762814

Homo Sapien god-kings killing Neanderthals to save the people

>>10762272

I gave you more than once example and I also never said that Europe was the birthplace of mankind. I specifically said there was not one origin point.

Learn to read you cretin.

>>10763891
what're the figures for asian denisovan admixture?

>>10758562

>>10765555
>/leftypol/ thinks subspecies is an insult
Dilate

Grizzly bears, coastal brown bears, polar bears, and Kodiak bears can all mate
also seals are just more bears...

>>10766829
Not an argument. Try again.

>>10758497
Better question: Were they white?

>>10766889
they were pale skinned, likely paler the further north they were

>>10766893
That's all I needed to hear. The neanderthals were A-ok with me.

>>10766885
>also seals are just more bears...

>>10766917

>>10766923
Doing a quick search for a source, found this instead:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePhwnKVARCw

>>10766933
majestic

>>10766933
elephants are related to manates and some tiny rodent like thing, whales are related to hippos and seals are very closely related to bears

>>10766955
ya'll boys talking 'bout the majestic klipdas/Hyrax?

>>10766991
nah there's a shrew or something

>>10766885
Yep. Same with dogs. They're just otters.

>>10758497
Interbreading

>>10767003
Forgot pic.

>>10767012
they're musteldae aren't they?
closer to weasels and badgers?

>>10767017
I don't know. Do you know if that classification has a genetic basis, or was an older classification based on physical trait?

>>10767037
it's complex, older taxonomies were physical genetic testing plays a larger role now there was quite a lot of shuffling after it was first introduced at a cost effective level.
last common ancestor of seals and bears was 40MYA
http://www.timetree.org/search/pairwise/polar%20bear/leopard%20seal

>>10767037
phylogenetic and molecular

>>10765546
Just because they're dumb and ugly and you don't want to be associated with them it doesn't mean they're a different subspecies, your feelings don't mean shit

>>10762801
Weird that /x/ is not obsessed with this

>>10767114
pygmies are admixtured with a ghost species and are ecologically very isolated from other populations
australians were effectively isolated from all other gene pools for 50,000 years
americans for between 24,000 and 15,000

>>10767140
Many human groups have been isolated for millenia and many more have some degree of archaic sapiens admixture, the fact that all of them can breed succesfully with other human groups makes a better argument for considering them all part of the same homogenous cluster than any arbitrary amount of time living in isolation or percentage of archaic human admixture

>>10767166
that's why they're described as subspecies not species anon
humanity can be divided into 7 or more rough racial groups based on gene clustering

>>10762801
>"Eurasian Neanderthals hunted, killed and cannibalised early humans for 50,000 years in an area of the Middle East known as the Mediterranean Levant. Because the two species were sexually compatible, Eurasian Neanderthals also abducted and raped human females…. this prolonged period of cannibalistic and sexual predation began about 100,000 years ago and that by 50,000 years ago, the human population in the Levant was reduced to as few as 50 individuals."
Sound like some anime/manga premise.

>>10758497
This is archaic science before our eyes. They did not die out. They are in us. There are plenty of modern humans with 4% (however it is measured.) there are probably more similarities that are indistinguishable. If a person still has that much DNA, their existence depends on a whole lof of Neanderthals..

>>10758497
The theories I have read that seem most plausible show how Neanderthal populations rapidly declined due to glacial expansion, were pushed into closer proximity with modern humans, then dealing with the rapid warming after the glacial expansion. Some theories place additional import on adaptation and other capabilities, but I don't see any of those other capabilities as being anywhere near as important as the aforementioned environmental pressures.

>>10767708

These just-so stories that cite glaciations don't ring true. Ice ages have had ca. 100kyr periodicity, there's nothing new on a species level about dealing with glacial advance/retreat.

>>10767716
Except for the fact that much of the megafauna also died out and smaller mammal populations boomed afterward. modern humans were at the sweet spot of the environment as far as avoiding drastic effects, and even then, there were large changes in bodies of water that had severe effects on populations of modern humans. 1000k years is a long freaking time when you are looking at species on the cusp of cognitive utility. There's pretty good evidence that neanderthal introduced several bone tools to modern humans, indication relative separation prior to populations being pushed closer together. If you have one population that is being reduced pushed into another population that is not being reduced and dealing with relatively the same environment they have been dealing with for the last several hundred thousand years, what do you think happens?

>>10767114
No, they're different subspecies because they're different enough genetically and in how they look to be considered as such. I'd argue they're more different from me than different subspecies of jackals are from one another.

>>10758736
Yeah, I bet they didn't respond to ibuprofen either.

Fucking schizo.

>>10767922
>No, they're different subspecies because they're different enough genetically

Genetic differences aren’t actually used for determining species or subspecies, and subspecies are bullshit that doesn’t really exist, even more so than species, so a threshold for what amount of genetic difference is significant enough to warrant a new classification of subspecies or species also doesn’t exist or is only arbitrary.

>and in how they look to be considered as such.

That’d be the phenotypic species concept, under which every dog breed is its own species and gingers are their own species and albino rats are their own species. How much of “looking differently” is enough to warrant classification of species or subspecies is arbitrary nonsense and that species concept is rarely used, if ever. It’s apparent that you have a surface level of knowledge about the topic and a significant degree of racism, so you’re trying to rationalize them “away” from you into some other taxonomic category because sharing a species with them bothers you in some way. Please stop.

>>10767214
>that's why they're described as subspecies not species anon

They’re not described as that either.

>humanity can be divided into 7 or more rough racial groups based on gene clustering

Genetic clusters aren’t races, nor do they exist as real things.

>>10767933
>Genetic differences aren’t actually used for determining species or subspecies
Fuck are you talking about? Of course they are.
>That’d be the phenotypic species concept
No, it wouldn't be. Subspecies are generally defined by how they look naturally, and not their DNA clustering.

> and subspecies are bullshit that doesn’t really exist, even more so than species,
Oh, I get it. So you're fucking stupid.

>>10767942
>Fuck are you talking about? Of course they are.

No they aren’t. We primarily use the biological species concept, which depends on reproductive isolation. Reproductive isolation can be due to significant genetic differences, geographical distance, behavioral differences, or mere anatomical differences. While genetic differences can contribute to this, they’re not what we really use to define them. Genes are one of the parties that cause reasons for classification but they are not the reason.

>No, it wouldn't be.

Defining species by how they look is the phenotypic species concept.

>Subspecies are generally defined by how they look naturally,

Okay, classify them by how they look. That’s arbitrary and useless but knock yourself out.

>Oh, I get it. So you're fucking stupid

Not an argument.

>>10767952
>No they aren’t. We primarily use the biological species concept, which depends on reproductive isolation.

Ecological and cladistic species concepts may dominate when we’re talking about asexual things.

>>10767952
So you went from "subspecies are bullshit and even species are bullshit" to "we define species by genetic isolation, but that doesn't apply to subspecies or humans because reasons".

Why?

>>10760574
>One anon here claimed he had 6.5% Neanderthal genes.

Isn't there some /pol/-like forum where people claim to have Neanderthal skull structures?

>>10767960
>So you went from "subspecies are bullshit and even species are bullshit" to "we define species by genetic isolation

No, we define them by reproductive isolation if possible. If a group of organisms have genomes so different from another group that they can not conceive fertile offspring, then they are reproductively isolated. No gene flow will ever occur between those two groups from now on. This takes place in degrees. The first degree would be the ability to conceive offspring but they aren’t fertile. Lions and tigers are halfway in this stage, because they can conceive fertile female offspring which can breed with tigers and lions, so geneflow could conceivably happen still. The second is when embryos are conceived but are aborted or die stillborn, which would include rattus rattus and rattus norvegicus. The third would be when no fertilization occurs, which would include humans and chimpanzees.
The problem with defining species in such a manner is that many independent populations widely recognized as “different” like polar bears and grizzly bears freely hybridize and make pizzly bears, in addition to panther species still retaining compatability through female hybrids, so reproductive isolation doesn’t necessarily imply genetic incompatibility and often doesn’t, because groups that CAN conceive healthy offspring can in practice never do so because of different mating behaviors or recognition methods, for example, some different toad species are entirely capable of having tadpoles together and live in the same area but in practice they do not because of different mating calls and periods. That’s where the ecological species type comes into play. Grizzly bears and polar bears can reproduce, but they occupy different niches in their environs, so they’re classed as different species.

>>10767960
>>10768006

>but that doesn't apply to subspecies or humans because reasons".

The only form of reproductive isolation that could have applied to humans would be geographical in nature, and that barrier has done nothing but be eroded since the 1500’s. Whatever diversity remains in the human species would have to be classified by how they “look”, which just sounds arbitrary and useless to me, or by the ecological species concept, but all primitive humans ever did was herd cattle, hunt, and/or farm plants. It’s not like Ugumbo occupies a different environmental niche in central Africa 67,000 years ago than Brognar in Scandinavia 14,000 years ago.

>>10768006
Alright, but subspecies can generally have offspring just fine with one another.

>>10768019
What does that have to do with subspecies?

>>10768021
Exactly, so what are we dividing them by, how much does this classification exist “in reality”, and what’s the use of doing so? Australian aboriginals look quite a bit different from other groups but they had the same ecological niche of any of the other billions of hunter-gatherers that ran around the planet for over 500,000 years. They do look different, though. If you want to define taxonomic groupings by how they “look”, knock yourself out.
Are their hybrids with white Australians a separate subspecies too? They look different from either, but the idea of a subspecies being created in one generation sounds silly to me.

>>10768030
>In biological classification, the term subspecies refers to one of two or more populations of a species living in different subdivisions of the species' range and varying from one another by morphological characteristics

>>10768037
That’d leave us with hundreds of subspecies.
Which is quite weird, since our entire population is a subspecies known as Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

>>10768041
No, it wouldn't. It would leave us with 8-9.

>The subspecies name H. sapiens sapiens is sometimes used informally instead of "modern humans" or "anatomically modern humans". It has no formal authority associated with it.[note 5] By the early 2000s, it had become common to use H. s. sapiens for the ancestral population of all contemporary humans, and as such it is equivalent to the binomial H. sapiens in the more restrictive sense (considering H. neanderthalensis a separate species).

>>10767937
>Genetic clusters aren’t races, nor do they exist as real things.

Seems pretty real to me, sorry that reality goes against your pet ideology.

>>10767933
>Genetic differences aren’t actually used for determining species or subspecies

Of course they are, and it is arguably the most objective measure. This is a rather new development since you need cheap genome sequencing to analyze many loci in many organisms to uncover rather fine clustering at the level of subspecies, so you may be unaware.

>>10768075
>Hadza Race made up by a computer

K dude

>>10768097
And the computer is correct.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadza_people

>Genetically, the Hadza are not closely related to any other people.

>>10768092
>Of course they are, and it is arguably the most objective measure.

No they aren’t. No “genetic species concept” exists. A cladistic one does.

>This is a rather new development since you need cheap genome sequencing to analyze many loci in many organisms to uncover rather fine clustering at the level of subspecies, so you may be unaware.

Genetic clustering isn’t subspecies or species, so that’s irrelevant. The amount of differences necessary to define subspecies and subspecies would also always be arbitrary. It’s apparent that you read about genetic clustering on a blog, attached it to the concept of subspecies for no reason, and then concluded genetic clusters are “real” when they are not. Please leave the conversation.

>>10768098
>And the computer is correct.

It’s correct that it made up genetic clusters from one set of data.

>Genetically, the Hadza are not closely related to any other people.

The only source is that graph, dumbass.

>>10768075
>2009
oh this is pretty out of date we've got the whole ancient north eurasians contribution to both europeans and amerindiands