/sci/ - Science & Math

OP is a homo.

Some shit I find amazing, is Cro-Magnon and Neanderthals having larger brain capacity than modern humans. Yet the our "superior" brain is often credited for us beating out other species who were physically superior.

Ok maybe brain dosnt always equal greater intelligence, but it generally does. So maybe their brains operated differently, I find this just as fascinating as the physical differences.

You are now manually aware of the fact that every person who has ever died and wasn't cremated is still on earth.

>>4199980

No really, unless they are fossilized, they would completely disintegrate over time.

Question: Did any Neanderthals live in Africa? If not, do people descended only from African heritage have no Neanderthal ancestry?

>>4199979
Neandertals (no h, guys) were built like linebackers. So yes they had the big brains to go with their burly physique. Going by encephalization quotients, however, Neandertals were at around 4.8, while anatomically modern humans have an eq of 5.3.

>>4199992

>2010: Comparison of Neanderthal genome with modern humans from Africa and Eurasia shows that 1–4% of modern non-African human genome might come from the Neanderthals

So nah niggers dont seem to have neanderthal genes.

>>4199999
Explains their height.

>>4199992
No. Yes.

>>4199996

What about the cro-magnon, basically modern humnas but with larger brain capacity. I heard someone say before that neanderthals didnt have achilles tendon, which made their running 10% less efficient.

Another thing massively interesting to me, is that there are many sub species of homo sapiens. So not only do we have our predecessors, (even ones on separate evolutionary lines to our own) but are species kept on evolving and newer species came in to being and have disappeared, yet here we are today.

Other species of human still exist to this day.

>>4200007
That's because we're all just getting dumb and small as a species. This sort of goes hand in hand with Jared Diamond's opening vignette in GGS, where he discusses his hunch that indigenous New Guineans trotting though the highlands with their spears are smarter than us coddled city folk, for the precise reason that the dumb simply die out in the former environment, while in the latter we're supported by a social safety net; you don't have to be smart to reproduce, just able to resist bacterial infections.

>>4200025

please explain

>>4200032

Ok so the lack of the "survival of the fittest" and now humans will suffer a de-evolution? But surely it hasnt not been that way long enough to affect brain size.

>>4200032
>>4200032

Jared Diamond is a moron who conveniently ignores decades of research of racial group differences and the environmental/genetic relationship to both measured intelligence and abstract intelligence.

He is human waste and I'm glad he is dead.

>>4200035
Blacks and aboriginals.

Aboriginals bred with homo denisova.

Blacks never bred with neanderthals.

Look at this pic, Homo Erectus was a fucking boss, 1.8 million years, the longest living homo genus, it makes Homo Sapiens look small time with only 0.2 million years.

But I suppose we have manage 7 billion of us on this planet at one time, good or bad depending how you look at it.

>>4200045
"Over the past 20,000 years, the average volume of the human male brain has decreased from 1,500 cubic centimeters to 1,350 cc, losing a chunk the size of a tennis ball. The female brain has shrunk by about the same proportion. “I’d call that major downsizing in an evolutionary eyeblink,” he says. “This happened in China, Europe, Africa—everywhere we look.” If our brain keeps dwindling at that rate over the next 20,000 years, it will start to approach the size of that found in Homo erectus, a relative that lived half a million years ago and had a brain volume of only 1,100 cc. "

>>4200049
I am so embarrassed for you right now. Have you ever taken a biological anthropology course in your life? Christ.

>>4200055

But according to science they all same species homo sapiens sapiens. But I personal think abos are a sub species of homo sapiens, I am going to call them homo sapiens abos.

I mean just look at these fuckers.

>>4200061

I think tards have only been allowed to live easily in the last few hundred years and semi easy for a few thousand.

Could also be the brain being more efficient, getting rid of redundant ancient parts no longer needed.

But it does have merit going forward, there simply some many dumb fucks that live with ease in first world countries. But once people get stupid again, shit will hit the fan and evolutionary pressures will kick in again.

I wish these reproduction skulls werent so expensive or I buy them all.

http://www.boneclones.com/BH-038.htm
http://www.boneclones.com/BH-KRO-1.htm

>>4200049
>Jared Diamond is a moron
>He is human waste and I'm glad he is dead.

It's crazy how we use this language to describe recognizable figures in science.
You people need to remember the difference between actual morons and misguided intellectuals, because it's fucking huge. Decades of research and relentless studying lead you to a false conclusion, and suddenly you're on par with a wal-mart greeter.
Fuck that. Ungrateful buffoons.

>>4200061
Part of the explanation for this could be that there's a big difference in the sort of humans who can survive in an untamed/wild environment, and those who have thrived because of a highly controlled urbanized/industrialized world.

I mean honestly, look out into the world and try to imagine how many(or rather how few) people would survive if you cut off all of the support structures of modern civilization.

That brain mass is most likely related to some of the lower/base instincts which have been rendered obsolete to some degree or another, and no longer provide a reproductive advantage.

>>4200063
>>4200063

His arguments are weak because of his poor, perhaps even delusion-influenced, understanding of psychometrics.

>>4200092

The problem is that Jared has been highly detrimental to a debate within a field of study, if not harmful to the field itself.

"Misguided" is too kind of a word. Perhaps sociopathic demagogue or delusional psychotic.

>>4200147
>>4200147

Your argument probably projects a poor understanding of the human brain and the evolutionary pressures to change it.

Clarify if I'm wrong.

>Homo Erectus

Sounds like engineering.

I would love to get the species together and make them fight to see would be the toughest.

>>4200058

Good point. They must've had a relatively large and stable population to prevent inbreeding and as such the discontinuation of new mutations for such a long time. Crossbreeding between different groups must've happened often. I wonder was it more by rape and pillage or exchange of women between tribes.

>>4200282

I'd like to think delicious rape, but probably a mixture of everything you mentioned.

>>4200061
But testing actually shows that humans are continually getting smarter in areas like math.
So I'm going to side with the anons chalking this up to obsolete layers or defunct areas of instinct.

Any good doco's on the subject?

Want to point out that having a big brain doesn't necessarily mean greater intelligence because otherwise whales who have the biggest brains in animal kingdom would be the smartest.

>>4200406

I like it, what of the Australian abos, where do they fit in?

>>4199969
the African ape-fucking taboo is interesting, if rather improbable (i mentioned it once when somebody somehow got onto the subject of people screwing animals).

It indicates the possibility of alternate erect hominids still in sub-saharan Africa less than 5000 years ago.

>>4200045
De-evolution doesn't exist. Even if we become less intelligent, if the human species as a whole became stupider at the same rate as everyone else, we would interact the same as we do now.

>>4200451
Nice

>>4200465
Lookin' good!

>>4200314
But science and progress builds up over time inevitably. You can't really use this as an example of actual increase in cognitive ability, because who is to say that our ancestors wouldn't be just as skilled as us, given the knowledge we have?

Evolution won't matter for long anymore either way. We'll start integrating technology into our bodies quite soon, and together with genetic engineering, we'll effectively bypass evolution. At least, the organic sort.

>>4200452
Kind of goes along with
>>4200469

Back to the Dawn of time.

>>4200452

Becoming stupider than humans of early era is de-evolution of the species. Dosnt matter if all the idiots of the same era are equally stupid relative to each other.

>>4200478
I cannot get over the chilling resemblance of this picture to my Grandfather.

>>4200485
No. Evolution has no direction.

>>4200486
Proof that we evolved from apes.

Whoever is posting the heads of all the species, thank you.

>>4200487

yes it does

It has successful direction and unsuccessful direction, just look at this thread and the different human species. It seems homo sapien evolution has peaked, now we are no longer under pressure where only the fittest and smartest succeed. Yes we are still evolving but in a negative direction, where fat unhealthy retards are able to live and reproduce.

>>4200485
If we became less intelligent at the same rate, we wouldn't be becoming less intelligent to one another. It would make absolutely no difference to the way we progressed. We would develop technologically successfully, at the same pace if we were all on the same level intellectually and able to communicate with one other, as we do now.

>>4200496
I blame the government for suppressing natural selection, lol

>>4200503

No, the species intelligence relative to one another is irrelevant. What matters is the species intelligence as a whole that matters.

>>4200507
I don't think you understand what I'm saying.

There is no up or down, and there certainly is no reversal, or smart or stupid when it comes to our evolution.

>>4200519

No you miss the point. What you are saying is stupid and only strengthens my argument.

I cannot make it any clearer than I already have.

>>4200524
Whatever you say

>>4200527

>Even if we become less intelligent, if the human species as a whole became stupider at the same rate as everyone else, we would interact the same as we do now.

>If we became less intelligent at the same rate, we wouldn't be becoming less intelligent to one another. It would make absolutely no difference to the way we progressed. We would develop technologically successfully, at the same pace if we were all on the same level intellectually and able to communicate with one other, as we do now.

You are one stupid muthafucker.

>>4200531
sounded right to me

>>4200456
datass.jpg

>>4200535

Probably because you are thick.

The species intelligence relative to one another is irrelevant. What matters is the species intelligence as a whole that matters.

Homo Erectus didnt disappear because they were all equally intelligence to one another, it was because they were less intelligent than other species. Because they evolved in direction that was less successful than other species from the homo genus, ie Us.

Now that homo-sapiens are no longer under pressures of natural selection, it is entirely possible that qualities that are undesirable for our species continued existence will be more wide spread, ie less intelligent, less healthy, etc etc A kind of de-evolution if you will.

Another example of why what you said is fucking stupid. Say there is a new disease and we must rush to find a cure before it wipes us out. Who more likely succeed? The human species that has evolved intelligent people or the one where everyone is equally stupid so it doesn't matter?

>>4200550
It was more about saying evolution has no back button. None of that is relevant.. at all

>>4200557
No, it is. But what I was saying was directed to our state now. We cannot become less intelligent.

>Who more likely succeed? The human species that has evolved intelligent people or the one where everyone is equally stupid so it doesn't matter?

Equally as stupid and intelligent, explain to me the difference. Not in a species vs. species way.

>>4200557

Yes it is you dumb fuck.

>Now that homo-sapiens are no longer under pressures of natural selection, it is entirely possible that qualities that are undesirable for our species continued existence will be more wide spread, ie less intelligent, less healthy, etc etc A kind of de-evolution if you will.

>>4200572
That's a fucking stupid theory, though.

>>4200565

>We cannot become less intelligent.

Yes we can.

Human species, every dumb fuck can breed, over tens of thousands of years, the collective IQ or brain size drops.

Human species where only the smartest and fittest survive, over tens of thousands of years, the collective IQ or brain size rises.

This is basic evolutionary theory, what is wrong with you fucking spastics.

>>4200575

>charles darwins theory of evolution
>That's a fucking stupid theory, though.

Please just fuck off.

>>4200583
>Human species, every dumb fuck can breed, over tens of thousands of years, the collective IQ or brain size drops.

>Human species where only the smartest and fittest survive, over tens of thousands of years, the collective IQ or brain size rises.

So the first one is wrong, yes.

>>4200589
THAT IS NOT DRAWINGS THEORY

>>4200590
DARWINS
caps

>>4200590

No, they are both possibilities. The first is true of the human species as we are now. The second was true of the human species in the past.

and yes it is paraphrasing of Darwin's theory of evolution and natural selection. It is like you dont understand evolution or natural selection, what is wrong with you? They are simple concepts, is it some christian thing?

>>4200602
You could be right, yes.
Though, Darwins theory states there is no direction in evolution. The way you're explaining it is something like us observing orangutans.
We're looking at it in two different view points, I'm afraid.
I'm going to sleep now

>>4200058

I'd say what scientists classify as a "species" is highly subjective. The fact that "homo sapiens" has only been around for "0.2million years" and "homo erectus" has been around much longer, is more a refelection of our natural speciesist bigotry and delusional notions of uniqueness (as if we somehow magically have a "soul" lol) than any actual scientifically valid description of our evolution.

As for the OP, his racism is showing (and not the scientific kind). Australian aboriginals are genetically closer to those of eurasian descent than sub-saharan africans are. If you really want to exclude a race from the human species you could pick the khoisan people (who are most genetically distant from the other races), but seeing that in such cases "species" is more of a cultural label than anything scientifically meaningful i don't see what's to gain from it. In fact it will do nothing but hinder inter-racial cooperation and fuel bigotry. Which is why the scientific community will never accept such a petty and juvenile defintion of homo sapiens.

Culture is what makes (most) black people suck. Black people who are adopted into a western family stop sucking. Racism is stupid.

Also, genetic engineering and technology will make evolution obsolete, so stop bickering.

>>4199969
>I often wish some other species survived, how would we deal with homo erectus, neanderthals, etc if we lived side by side with them today.

We'd kill them, just like we did the first time.

>>4200648

Be cool though if some did survive, maybe like the mountain gorillas or even they ended up a "second class species", kept them as slaves or pets.

>>4200617

I dont think abos are not of the human species, I think they are are sub species. Look at their skull it is closer to homo sapiens idaltu than Homo sapiens sapiens.

You hit the nail on the head is political correctness that forbids such things not true scientific endeavor.

I think when you put peoples feelings ahead of scientific truth, you hurt human progress more than what you are saying.

>>4200718
That's because retards will use these scientific facts to create a scale and justify oppressing some people based on their ethnic background.

>>4200725

Fuck that shit, we cant advance science just in case people might do bad shit.

You know what's really badass; Homo Heidelbergensis

Stood between 6 and 7 foot tall, had much denser muscle and bone than homo sapiens, and much more muscle tissue.

They must have been some scary mother fuckers.

>>4200731
Well, you can thank the nazis for that.

>>4200731
How the fuck does reclassifying a single human race as a seperate sub-species (solely based on their appearance) help advance our understanding of the world?

Our scientific understanding of the world would remain the exact same.

Wanting to mess around with scientific labels just so you can come on 4chan and say "hurr durr abbos" is no doubt the most anti-science position of all.

>>4200734

Wikipedia is saying they 1.8m tall? but they had a decent brain 1100–1400 cm (ours 1130 cm) and they would have been strong fuckers, weighing in at 100kg. Apparently a direct ancestor of Humans and Neanderthals.

I was reading before about Gigantopithecus, this guy was 3 metres tall, but his from the pre-homo genus like Australopithecus etc

Homo Erectus vs Neanderthal, a fight to the death, who wins and why?

>>4200743

It is a slippery slope, where do we draw the line? I want the truth to be known no matter who it might upset.

Going off on tangent with chance a of destroying any creditability I have. It is the same thing as how examining the holocaust is against the law and a jail-able offense. I find this ridiculous, what other historic event are you not allowed to question? Lets find out the truth, it probably lies somewhere between the zionist jews exaggerations and the white supremacist complete denial.

>>4200769
It's hard enough to come with a proper definition of species, trying to put people into boxes based on their origins is a slippery slope.

Best name:

Salenthropus Tchadensis.

Precursor to Homo genus.

>>4200785

What you described there is what we call science, sorry if it upsets your sensibilities.

>>4200743

This

>>4200806

I guess you dont like science either.

>>4200440
that one looks alpha as fuck

Looking through all of these graphs and information on previous homo species, it's starting to make me wish there was another homo species alive today. It may end up causing more problems if there was; since even with just different races within our own species causes problems, but having another species to interact with that is close in relations to us would make everything more interesting.

>>4200820


With the name of Homo Erectus and the longest rein of any of the homo genus, your dam right.

>>4200822
theyre called niggers

relation not relations.

>>4200822

Who would you pick to around today?

>>4200829
it'd be nice to see what it would be like if homo floresiensis didn't go extinct.

>>4200837

It make me wonder, like how they were discovered so recently, how many other species do we not know about? Especially from early on.

I have always had a soft spot for Neanderthals, so close to our times and so similar, yet so different.

>>4199979
>intelligence
Women are just as intelligent as men and have smaller brains.

>>4199996
They were built more like chimps than linebackers. They were far stronger than humans.

>>4200863
>Women are just as intelligent as men

>>4200617
5 star post

>>4200863

Yeah gotta say you just disproved your own point there.

>>4200086
Haha my dad got me a neanderthal one for a science project back in the day. They are really cool.

>>4200873

Dude stop coming back and samefagging your shitty post how peoples feelings > science.

did the homo erectus get anything completed in all those years?
(500,000 )?

>>4200482
Looks like the 1.5-2.0 mya era was the time to live. Probably untold numbers of species wars.

>>4200752
Neanderthal was much more robust than erectus, and had a much larger brain. Erectus probably traveled in larger groups, however.

>>4200825
You know that white people are the most closely related of all other races to black people, right? We are basically black people with white skin.

>>4200919
Well they survived which makes a species successful.

As far as cultural things, not much. Their tools evolved practically not at all for almost all of that period.

>>4200940
and a lot smarter

>>4199969
Evolution fail my friend. It is a characteristic of the process that no species has living ancestors. Race differences are only becomming less pronounced as our species becomes more prolific, eventually, we'll all be the same.

>>4200944
No, they have material advantages that make them look smarter. For instance, at one time the Egyptians (Africans) were the peak of human achievement because they had an ideal geographic/economic situation on the River Nile, where they could control the lucrative Mediterranean trade in grain.

Your illusion of cultural and racial superiority is understandable given the last 500 years of extreme racial subjugation and imperialism at the hands of Western countries. Not all of us can see our selves in a historical light.

>>4200950
no you are just black and cant admit it

niggers have been doing the same things for eternity

and the egyptians werent black.

>>4200950
>at one time the Egyptians (Africans) were the peak of human achievement because they were ruled by a white line of Pharaohs

>>4200954
First of all Africa is by far the most genetically diverse of all continents, so what you say is a "black race" is really just a vast collection of different genetic groups that happen to have dark skin. Second of all, Egypt was an African empire, as were there equally impressive Nubian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nubian_pyramids)) souther neighbors.

You are an ignorant bigot.

>>4200955
Source?

>>4200959
Egyptian commonly represents fair haired and fair skinned people, plus the fact that a lot of mummies have auburn or blond hair remains.

>>4200959
not that poster, but i know Cleopatra was mostly greek, a descendant of Alexander. However, the earliest Egyptian pharaohs would have surely been of pure African descent.

there's a difference between super-saharan niggas and sub-saharan niggas.

>>4200949

>eventually, we'll all be the same.

wrong

interbreeding isn't like mixing paint - diversity doesn't just suddenly disappear within a few generations

>>4200944
The smartest black people are smarter than the average white person and vice versa. The problem isn't that *insert ethnic origin here* are stupid it's that most homo sapiens are.

>>4200963
>Cleopatra
>at one time the Egyptians (Africans) were the peak of human achievement
learn history... these are not the same periods

Welcome to Costco. I love you.

>>4200818
what part of "our scientific understanding of the world wouldn't change" do you not understand?

I'm not advocating the hiding of scientific evidence. I support free-speech and unbiased science 100%.

I don't support the reclassification of australian aboriginal people as a sub-species seperate from the rest of humanity (despite clear genetic evidence to the contrary) because "hurr durr abbos look funny amirite".

There's nothing anti-scientific about recognising the negative societal implications such a move would have. Nor is there anything anti-scientific about using those negative societal implications as a reason to not go ahead with the reclassification when it is clear that there is absolutely no scientific benifit whatsoever to be gained from such a reclassification. Race, species, subspecies, they are all fuzzy labels with a high degree of subjectivity. There are no clear undebateable scientific transition points. As a result these labels are cultural more than strictly scientific. When deciding on cultural labels, societal implications should of course be taken into account.

>>4200950
Africa above the sahara (egypt, carthage etc.) is inhabited mostly by caucasians. Africa below the sahara is inhabited mostly by negroids.

An ancient roman would have considered themselves more simmilar to a carthaginian than a gaul or a germanic tribesman.

>>4200955
[Citation Needed]

>>4201003

It is a absolute, you either are purely scientific or not. Just because it is your opinion "our scientific understanding of the world wouldn't change" dosnt make it so.

We rigidly classify all living creatures by the following.
Kingdom
Phylum
Class
Order
Family
Genus
Species

You are saying lets not apply this to certain peoples because they might not like it or prolly dosnt matter that much anyways.

I am saying fuck you and fuck your shit. Lets just do it scientifically and unbiased, not let feelings or social pressures influence facts.

I really think you are nigger or jew who is angry at what they are. Abos have vastly different skulls to all other Homo sapien sapiens, we should be able to explore whether they are a sub species without liberal cunts like you telling us what we can and cannot investigate.

>>4201068
Is that picture supposed to prove Americans have developed worse fashion sense while the Abos always had shit fashion sense?

>>4201071

Lets be honest abos branched off from the rest of the homo sapiens some 70,000 years ago and there is also some evidence that they and New Guinean peoples received a portion of their DNA from Homo erectus .

But because of the faggot brigade who think derp herp, everyone is equal, we are all the same, like the tosser in this thread we cannot fully investigate.

>>4201068
I'm not the guy you've been replying to.

define:species
>A group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.

Last time I checked, there was no separated group of humans that did not have the ability to reproduce with humans inhabiting the rest of the world.

Define:subspecies
>A taxonomic category that ranks below species, usually a fairly permanent geographically isolated race.

While abbos are considered a different "race" by layman's terms, they are not geographically isolated. There is nothing preventing someone of Abbo descent from mingling with other groups of people.

>>4201003

I think aboriginals are a subspecies of homo sapiens.

From the origin of races:

The Australoid sub-species has three races: (i)Australoid proper, (ii) Tasmanian and Papuo-Melanesian (iii) negritos.

All are descended from Pithecanthropus which was Homo Erectus that lived on Java 500,000 years b.p. Pithecanthropus had the legs of an Australian aborignal and the skull was evolving in the same direction.

Also found on Java was Solo Man who was also Homo Erectus and live there 100,000 b.p. Pithecanthropus and Solo have similar skull shape but Solo is larger. This shows that there was little evolution in the wet tropics of Java over a period of 400,000 years.

Cranial capacity (male/female):

Pithecanthropus: 900cc/775cc
Solo: 1,150cc/1,040cc
Modern Australians: 1,350cc/1,180cc

There are some modern aborigine females living today with cranial capacity under 1,000cc. This indicates they are still at the Erectus/Sapiens threshold.

A skull from the Niah Cave in North Borneo establishes the existence of Australoid Homo Sapiens 40,000 b.p.

Wadjak, a Homo Sapiens, found also in Java had a cranial capacity of 1,475cc. It's age is between 10,000 and 40,000 years old.

Sometime between Solo and Wadjak, the transition between Homo Erectus to Homo Sapiens was made. This transition may not have ocurred on Java but from a gene flow from the mongoloid region to the north. Wadjak shows extraordinary facial flatness.

Wadjak is as large and heavy as the Heidelberg jaw found in Germany. It is not known whether Heidelberg (which is at least 360,000 years old) was Erectus or Sapiens. The teeth are similar in size to many modern Europeans and the skull base was narrow which is indicative of Sapiens.

>>4201088

>While abbos are considered a different "race" by layman's terms, they are not geographically isolated. There is nothing preventing someone of Abbo descent from mingling with other groups of people.

They were genetically isolated for at least 70,000 years.

>>4201098
>They were genetically isolated for at least 70,000 years.
>were

to retouch on my last post:
1: Abbos can interbreed with other groups of people from different regions
2: Abbos are able to mingle with other groups of people from different regions

Having big heads or being otherwise aesthetically displeasing does not constitute being a sub-species.
They do not meet the definition of sub-species.

>>4201003

If science today weren't so politically correct, then they would treat the human species the same way they treat other species — synchronically. Why the paleo-anthropologists should be the only ones who get to determine human taxonomy is beyond me. With every other living species, we let the experts in actual biology do the taxonomy first and then the paleontologists come in and attach their theoretical reconstructions like footnotes onto the present (and therefore known) taxonomy produced by the actual biologists.

If we did that with humans, and if we were honest, then we would recognize that there are actually a handful of human subspecies all occupying the planet together. Then the paleontologists would have to base their theories on what we knew about actual reality rather than the other way around.

So I would say that none of us is H. sapiens sapiens, since I reject that subspecific classification altogether. And though Australian aborigines are unquestionably in the same species as we are, I think it's clearly safe to say that they are not in the same subspecies. But we should not let the paleo-anthropologists trick us into thinking that difference in human subspecies necessarily indicates difference in levels of progression.

>>4201104

1) Neanderthals could inter-breed but were a different sub-species of homo-sapeins.


2) No they were not they, they were stuck on a big fucking island for 70,000 years. Genetically isolated from all other humans.

>>4201104

Dont put too much into the "if they can breed then they are the same species" arguement. There are a few species I know of off hand that can breed with other very closely related species and produce sexually reproductive offspring. Some members of the genus canis can produce viable offspring. Also first hand, I use to raise african cichlids, there are hundreds of species of them and scores of them can produce viable sexually reproductive offspring with eachother if you are not careful. Its was a major pain making sure the tank didnt get overrun by hybrids.

Oh boy, only just came across this thread.

I think Neanderthals are my favourite too because we are so close in time and geography. For those of us in Europe it is easy to see the sites we know they lived in, and the fact that we share some of their genes proves how similar we were. I have been to the Neanderthal museum in Germany, and just cannot get enough of the period c.30,000BP when we lived side by side. My undergrad dissertation was on the subject, and if I could time travel this would be the first era I would visit.

As for present populations, I don't think humans are different enough to be classified as separate sub-species, but there should be some recognition of our differences. As you say, sub-Saharans, Aborigines, far-Eastern/native Americans and Europeans all look very different.

I would love to be able to trace the changing appearances of said populations over time, such as whether it changed during migration or afterwards, and the difference between native North and South Americans.

evolution is a lie

Well, you can say what you want about abbos, but as far as living in Australia is concerned, they're god-tier while pale-skin anglo-saxons are skin-cancer-tier.
Just like dark-skinned in nordic countries are vitamin D-deficiency tier.

>>4200032
Evolution doesn't work backwards.
Why would we get stupider? That wouldn't be evolutionary advantageous.

Our brain sizes are getting smaller but we have billions of neurons each with about 10000 synapses, so we can fire more signals to other neurons and form connections faster which lets us think, and its increasing so if anything it means our brains are becoming more efficient.

>>4201206
>Why would we get stupider? That wouldn't be evolutionary advantageous.
It could simply mean that it stopped being advantageous. If stupid people have as much chances to reproduce than smart people, people aren't going to get any smarter. In fact, if being smart was previously an advantage but isn't anymore, people should get less smart with time as stupid people are going to contribute to the gene pool more than they used to when it was better to be smart.

Is being smart really an evolutionary advantage in today's society?

>>4201106

Subspecies has already been defined in this thread. If you haven't read it, read it. If you have, answer this: At what level of genetic diversity within a species is creating a subspecies necessary? Enough for the heads to be "too" big? Enough for a /sci/ poster to warrant it? You seem to be convinced that new classifications are needed and that scientists are shackled by political correctness but have yet to show that such a major change is even necessary other than "they're ugly and dumb and I'm not"

>>4201122
>Dont put too much into the "if they can breed then they are the same species" arguement.
That's the definition of a species, not an argument for what a species is. If we're not discussing "species" feel free to replace the word "species" with "x". "x" being something else. Don't get me wrong, this isn't to say that producing viable offspring inter-species is impossible. No, it means that (like in many other sciences) x=x for the most part unless x=y.

>>4201223
I'm not sure i understand where you're coming from, do you believe we would get to a point where one day we are just no longer self aware?

Every human brain has the capacity for knowledge, its mostly upbringing and personality that determines whether you're going to be a complacent moron living your life, or have that thirst for knowledge.

My mates parents are dumb as rocks, but hes very smart, loves science, literature, maths he also plays the piano.

>>4201206
>Why would we get stupider? That wouldn't be evolutionary advantageous.
Implying the smart reproduce more...

I see what you're saying, but you've got as much chance dieing of your own stupidity in the concrete jungle the same as the real jungle.

Darwinawards.com

>>4201290
no. It's that the smart have been used by the stupid to build the "concrete jungle" so they can have a life of comfort while they continue to breed like rabbits. So to speak, the smart are reproductively/socially stupid.

Bump for the bump gods.

I actually have dreams of killing/magicing away all the black people in the world. I haven't ever met one that I haven't not had to force myself to tolerate.`

Fuck year, maybe we can clone Neanderthals back to life.