Why are Negroes still classified as H. sapiens?

[Anonymous No.11947925]

If, according to recent research, they are the result of species-mixing between humans and primitive hominids?

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/7/eaax5097

[Anonymous No.11947969]

>>11947925
Europeans are a mix of humans and neanderthals. The human race should be divided into subspecices

[Anonymous No.11947982]

>>11947969
Yes. But Neanderthals are still in the genus Homo. They were close relatives. The "ghost people" were not.

[Anonymous No.11948000]

The ghost people was probably closer to H. naledi.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXOyVG-LNoA

[Anonymous No.11948105]

>>11947925
I think it's because they can produce fertile offspring with other members of H.sapiens. Today even the neanderthals are classified as a subspecies of H.sapiens.
It would be more accurate to consider negroes to be a different subspecies than a different species.

[Anonymous No.11948143]

>>11948105
>It would be more accurate to consider negroes to be a different subspecies than a different species.

By your premise, even primitive clades of hominids, e.g. H. naledi, would be considered subspecies of H. sapiens since the ancestors of modern Negroes produced a fertile offspring with their members.

[Anonymous No.11948151]

>>11948000
Interesting video about these guys: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgBJmdpqWsU

[Anonymous No.11948193]

Read your own paper op.

>The signals of introgression in the West African populations that we have analyzed raise questions regarding the identity of the archaic hominin and its interactions with the modern human populations in Africa.

>Analysis of the CSFS in the Luhya from Webuye, Kenya (LWK) also reveals signals of archaic introgression, although our interpretation is complicated by recent admixture in the LWK that involves populations related to western Africans and eastern African hunter-gatherers (section S8) (20). Non-African populations (Han Chinese in Beijing and Utah residents with northern and western European ancestry) also show analogous patterns in the CSFS, suggesting that a component of archaic ancestry was shared before the split of African and non-African populations.

[Anonymous No.11948309]

>>11948193
This is the main message:

>. We provide complementary lines of evidence for archaic introgression into four West African populations. Our analyses of site frequency spectra indicate that these populations derive 2 to 19% of their genetic ancestry from an archaic population that diverged before the split of Neanderthals and modern humans.

>Our results reveal the substantial contribution of archaic ancestry in shaping the gene pool of present-day West African populations.

[Anonymous No.11948316]

>>11947982
>Doesn't know anything about the "ghost people"
>Claims to know what species they were in

[Anonymous No.11948321]

>>11948316
If they are archaic hominids then they are closer to H. naledi than, for example, H. sapiens or H. neanderthalensis.

[Anonymous No.11948330]

>>11948321
>If
Do you know that they are? Or are you just saying they are because they fit your conculsion.
Also 2-19% is a very broad range. Seems fishy to me.

[Anonymous No.11948349]

>>11948330
It is on the paper:
>Our analyses document introgression in four present-day West African populations from an archaic population that likely diverged BEFORE the split of modern humans and the ancestors of Neanderthals and Denisovans.

>Also 2-19% is a very broad range.
They sampled many groups of West African Negroes.

[Anonymous No.11948440]

>>11947925
Oy vey! Subversive research!

[Anonymous No.11948573]

>>11948309

So we are just going to ignore the...

>Non-African populations (Han Chinese in Beijing and Utah residents with northern and western European ancestry) also show analogous patterns in the CSFS, suggesting that a component of archaic ancestry was shared before the split of African and non-African populations.

...because why again? If non-african populations have parts of that same archaic ancestry then what is your argument behind them not being considered H.Sapiens? Especially if the archiac ancestry admixture occurred before the split between the two populations? This could easily be interpreted as them retaining more archaic ancestry in specific populations in West Africa if the range is as wide as 2-19% percent as you pointed out.

[Anonymous No.11948576]

>>11947925
because rednecks are

[Anonymous No.11948720]

>>11947925
>it's another racist thread

[Anonymous No.11948765]

>>11947925
They probably mixed with Homo Erectus. They were around until about 30k years ago, when they were finally blended into homo sapiens.
The ghost species is probably H Erectus but they don't want to say that cuz it would cause a shit storm.

[Anonymous No.11948786]

>>11948720
Science is racist.

[Anonymous No.11948795]

>>11948786
Cherrypicking and distorting the evidence is.

[Anonymous No.11948821]

>>11947925
Because of Jews.

[Anonymous No.11948888]

>>11948720
>it's another /sci/ poster who's more interested in social justice than science

[Anonymous No.11948892]

>>11948720
>>11948888
although I admit the title is retarded bait

[Anonymous No.11948902]

>>11948765
>The ghost species is probably H Erectus but they don't want to say that cuz it would cause a shit storm.

This. Any glimpse at Homo Erectus facial reconstructions makes it abundantly clear that there's a whole lot of H. Erectus DNA floating around in West Africans.

[Anonymous No.11949004]

>>11947925
Go back to >>>/pol/ Jim Crow fag.