/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.6725577]

What does /sci/ think of this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZbmywzGAVs

[Anonymous No.6725588]

>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.6725626]

>>6725577
a lot of his points seem very reasonable. do you know of any journal publications along the same line of thought?

[Anonymous No.6725735]

>>6725577
prehistoric rabid ewoks confirmed

[Anonymous No.6725742]

>>6725577
I think the reasoning that they looked like us because they are our closest ancestor is pretty sound

[Anonymous No.6726485]

>>6725742
they are not ancestors, we share a common ancestor they are a different evolutionary branch that share our dna in 99.5%
>>6725577
i love it, i like to imagine they were the frost giants that the first gods (thy hybrids) defeated after a reign of terror and predation. norse myth shit you know. these dudes were about 6 times stronger than their contemporary humans and at least 3 times stronger than a modern man.

but the truth is with such a genetic match and possibility of interbreeding it is unlikely that they looked this alien to us.

i completely agree tho that the reconstructions of neandtherals are wishful thinking and the authors just wanted to see themselves into the subjects. when you see the differences between the skeletons and you see the barely unnoticeable differences between the reconstructions from us, then you realize they did a lot of smudging there...

[Anonymous No.6726820]

>>6725577
Interesing.

[Anonymous No.6726881]

So he gave it more of a gorilla profile now.

[Anonymous No.6726890]

>>6725577
He hired a digital sculptor. Of course he had to make it look like a malicious, snarling scary monster like the stuff he probably creates for games, tv and film.

I thought the video was interesting. But, my knowledge is lacking. Would be nice to hear some counters to some of his points.

[Anonymous No.6726891]

Some of his stated facts are just wrong. He claims there was a 70,000 year period of interaction between Sapiens and Neanderthals? The currently estimated period that the species would have inhabited the same areas is about 5-7000 years prior to the Neanderthal extinction/absorption

[Anonymous No.6727374]

>>6726890

>Would be nice to hear some counters to some of his points.

When Vendramini shows his side by side comparisons, he fails to take these characteristic differences of the skulls into account. To get the slope of the skull’s face to align with that of the chimpanzee, he has completely ignored the position of the foramen magnum, at the base of the skull. In the image to the right, the neanderthal’s spine would be erupting out the front of his trachea. Also note the lack of nuchal crests or any substantial nuchal ridge, and the orientation requiring that the chimp’s ears be yanked down to be coming out of his neck, and how the chimp’s neck has to be mostly filled with the bowl of the occiput. They also had prominent nasal bones, a feature they share with homo sapiens also the earlier erectus but not with the great apes. Any reconstruction that suggests the neanderthal nose was flat and thus ape-like is not supported by their facial anatomy.

There have been no published findings of neanderthal fossils accompanied by evidence of thick body fur. On the other hand, there is tantalizing evidence that they may have had the technology to make sewn garments, thus reducing any selection pressure favoring hirsuteness, as well as evidence that homo habilis had lost it's body hair some 3 million years ago. Neanderthals are well-documented to have used caves and possible constructed shelters. In addition, Europe was definitely not in a state of constant glaciation during the few hundred thousand years that neanderthals lived there. During interglacial periods temperatures were fairly similar to what they are today – hardly conditions where a thick furry pelt would be selected for.

[Anonymous No.6727377]

>>6726485
I thought we had neanderthal dna because we bred with them at some point. Sure I read that somewhere.

[Anonymous No.6727382]

The idea is interesting but I suspect that, in an effort to avoid being too anthropocentric, he may be then going too far in the opposite direction, to chimpocentric.

[Anonymous No.6727389]

>>6727377
it's possible that we didn't... cause the common genetic markers might have been result of shared evolution before our separation in africa.

[Anonymous No.6727438]

Fuck yeah humanity

Neanderthals getting BTFO!

[Anonymous No.6727456]

>>6727438
>>>/reddit/

[Anonymous No.6727534]

>tfw several neanderthal attributes

bow down, mongoloid scum

[Anonymous No.6727626]

My impressions, from a position of relative ignroance
>Black skin
White skin is an adaptation to the reduced hours of sunlight in Northern Europe, allowing increased production of vitamin D. I don't understand why neanderthals would have black skin according to his hypothesis.

>anthropocentric vs chimpocentric
Each is as likely to be true as the other.

>Implying humans are distinct from primates
Neanderthals having human-like features seems less unlikely when you consider that both of them are members of the homidae family of primates. Framing humans as distinct from primates encourages the greater leaps that he proposes.

Interesting ideas, all said.

[Anonymous No.6727629]

>>6727626
And I just read on Wiki that recent studies show that neanderthals cooked vegetables and left coprolites indicative of significant vegetable eating. That removes another justification for the huge change.

[Anonymous No.6727645]

>>6727626
artists impression failed. he thinks they had ginger hair. explains gingers.

[Anonymous No.6727655]

So then what did the Cro Magnon look like?

[Anonymous No.6727662]

>>6725577
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZbmywzGAVs

Well, it's interesting. But on the other hand, had we not mixed with them, we wouldn't have white skin, blue eyes, red hair, resistance to malaria, lactose tolerance and high IQ. All of those came from neanderthal genes. We should be especially thankful for high IQ because the races that don't have neanderthal genes are dumb as shit and have IQ 40-50 points lower.

If you'd like to know more, get this amazing book:

http://the10000yearexplosion.com/

Pic related.

[Anonymous No.6727678]

>>6727662
>the 10000 year explosion
You do not get increased change in the alleles of a species were selective factors are mitigated due to the fact that they change the environment.Go shill this tripe somewhere else.

> IQ 40-50 points lower
>exaggerating the gap this much
>not knowing IQ gap isn't found when socioeconomic factors are accounted for

[Anonymous No.6727695]

>>6727678
>>exaggerating the gap this much

Fine, I'll give you the precise number: 49

http://www.photius.com/rankings/national_iq_scores_country_ranks.html

[Anonymous No.6727713]

>racemixing

[Anonymous No.6727714]

>>6727662
So much pseudoscience in one post.

1) No one knows what their skin, hair, or eyes were like. Even just 20 years ago most people would walk around claiming that they were black and this was because they were "less evolved" than us (as it was a common belief at the time that we evolved from them, something we all now know is incorrect).
2) There have been papers suggesting interbreeding with neanderthals, but there also have been papers in response showing that the shared genetic information can be explained by a common ancestor suggesting that we perhaps didn't mix with them.
3) In the papers suggesting interbreeding it's explained that the shared genetic information is present in ALL HUMANS besides some groups in Africa. Obviously, it is not the case that all humans besides some groups in Africa have white skin, blue eyes, and red hair.

You are a fucking idiot.
>>>/x/
>>>/pol/
>>>/lit/

[Anonymous No.6727718]

>>6727695
No one is this dumb, your bait is too obvious.
2/10

[Anonymous No.6727723]

>>6727695

Hey, Richard Lynn. If China-men are so smart than why is china so fucked up?

[Anonymous No.6727735]

>>6727714
all that butthurt. damn.

you obviously know fuck-all about this subject. if you actually picked up a book on it, you'd see that everything I said was 100% true.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/neanderthal-man-132610828/?no-ist

you seem to be an anti-science PC nutjob.

[Anonymous No.6727738]

>>6727662
This is simply untrue.
Modern humans evolved within Africa, and the full range of intelligence scores are mapped even among Africans.
In fact, western IQ scores have in some cases risen by more than a standard deviation within the course of a century of industrialization.
Controlling for socioeconomic and cultural upbringing, African scores are further increased enough that by occasion razor, consensus remains that the Flynn effect will still account for bridging any average difference gap entirely.
The logical explanation for what we observe is that intelligence is a polymeric trait that is highly elastic in how it manifests with respect to environment.
You are also presuming that intelligence being hereditary implies that a change in intelligence necessitates microevolution. This is demonstrably false. Hereditary =/= genetic.

[Anonymous No.6727743]

>>6727738
> polymeric
*polygenetic.
(autocorrect)

[Anonymous No.6727744]

>>6727738
>Modern humans evolved within Africa

Bzzt, wrong.

>OUT OF AFRICA: WRONG, AUTHOR OF THE THEORY SAYS SO

>The world's foremost anthropologist, Dr. Christopher Stringer, the same one who originally developed the Out of Africa Origin theory of mankind now says he was wrong. The origin of mankind occurred in the Levant region, and there were migrations into Africa, with modern Africans being hybrids between archaic Homo Sapiens and surviving populace of Homo Heidelbergensis.

http://www.edge.org/conversation/rethinking-out-of-africa

>Re-Examining the "Out of Africa" Theory and the Origin of Europeoids (Caucasoids) in Light of DNA Genealogy

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=19566

[Anonymous No.6727763]

>>6727744
>What is mitochondrial DNA

>same one who originally developed the Out of Africa Origin theory of mankind now says he was wrong
This has no bearing on weather something is right or wrong ,it's like when creationists state that Darwin admitted he was wrong about evolution on his deathbed. Even if he did , the validity doesn't lie on whether the person who contrived the idea thinks he was right or not.

>Caucasoids
nice 19th century terminology you got there , its good to see people like you the cutting edge of knowledge.

[Anonymous No.6727791]

>>6727735
>pop-science magazine as a source

[Anonymous No.6727795]

>>6727744
Science is wrong because muh feelings. Also this
>>6727763
>nice 19th century terminology you got there , its good to see people like you the cutting edge of knowledge.

>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.6727802]

>>6727795
>BAWWWWWWWWWWWWWW i don't like the fact that my terms are meaningless an antiquated.

[Anonymous No.6727803]

>>6727735
Here is a paper arguing against hybridization and providing an alternative model.
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/35/13956.abstract

However, since it's obvious you've never into science and are just a posturing /pol/esmoker then here is a news article from the university webpage that will dumb it down for you.
http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/doubts-about-whether-modern-humans-and-neanderthals-interbred
If that's not enough, here's a pop-science magazine.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22168-human-and-neanderthal-interbreeding-questioned.html#.VAKuDoFKXmE

[Anonymous No.6727805]

>>6727802
I'm not that dumbass. I was also going to point out that terms like Caucasoids are meaningless antiquated bullshit from before we even had genetics but then when I saw another anon already did that I just quoted their post.

[Anonymous No.6727815]

>>6727723
because IQ only tests a brain's processing power. That doesn't matter if you don't have the right programs and data running on it.

[Anonymous No.6727825]

>>6727389
Aren't sub-Saharan Africans missing those genes? That would prove it wasn't from a common ancestor, but directly from Neanderthals.

[Anonymous No.6727827]

>>6727626
Lighter skin tone was picked up from neanderthals after inter breeding. Blacks are the pure bloods.

[Anonymous No.6727836]

>>6727825
No it wouldn't, refer to this research paper.
>>6727803

[Anonymous No.6727849]

Looks like Vendramini is starting from the assumption that we are a different species from Neanderthals.
Interesting point of view, but sort of extreme. His reconstruction is plausible but on one end of the possible spectrum.

[Anonymous No.6727861]

>>6727849
>different species from Neanderthals
>an assumption
despite the fact that difference between spices is a gradient rather than definitive divison

[Anonymous No.6727871]

>>6727861
Sure, it's a matter of degree.
But he seems to be taking an extreme view of the difference between the two groups.
The points about the position and size of the eyes and the assumption of hairiness are pretty good. But the rest is pretty unadulterated speculation.

[Anonymous No.6727901]

The guy obviously doesn't know shit about any paleoanthropology or how biology works. His depiction of the neanderthals looks so comicly evil that there's no reason to take his speculative ill-supported shit seriously.

[Anonymous No.6727921]

>>6727871

By 1.2 million years ago, all humans had acquired the version of the MC1R gene, which influences the expression of melanin, which would promote darker skin. Chimpanzees and bonobos, like our presumptive ancestors, have dark hair but light skin. Presumably, with the loss of the hair, humans would need a new way to protect themselves from the harsh African sun.

To understand the evidence for a 3-4million year ago date, you need to know something about lice. Hair and body lice are closely related and are in turn very related to the chimpanzee louse; the point where our lice speciated from its common ancestor with the chimpanzee louse corresponds to the time when we speciated from our common ancestors with chimpanzees. However, the human pubic louse's nearest relative is the gorilla louse. They separated 3-4 million years ago, long after the human/gorilla split. Presumably we picked up the gorilla louse from the environment, something that could only happen after we have lost most of our body hair, leaving only the pubic area as an oasis of hairiness ripe for colonization by a foreign louse.

The earliest possible date for the emergence of neanderthals is 600,000 years ago, which is still way too late for a hairy gorilla-like cave man.

[Anonymous No.6727936]

>>6727827
refer to
>>6727921

[Anonymous No.6727940]

Here's the problem with modern science.

These are considered the same species.

[Anonymous No.6727942]

>>6727940
>muh phrenology
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.6727947]

yes, human females were raped for aeons by big furry niggers.

imokwiththis.jpg

[Anonymous No.6727951]

>>6727940
> here's what's wrong with modern science:
> it says things which have been proven true but which I don't like

[Anonymous No.6727960]

>>6727951
So you deny that if those two skulls were dated hundreds of thousands of years ago, they would be defined as separate species, if not genera?

[Anonymous No.6727965]

>>6727960
I'm not that guy, but yes. The only scenario where you would classify those as separate species is in the scenario where you don't have access to genetics or really most of the tools of modern science. In other words, if you were living in the retard ages (the 1950s).

[Anonymous No.6728076]

>>6727921
>we picked up the gorilla louse from gorillasex
Of course.

[Anonymous No.6728083]

>>6727825
like this anon said: >>6727836

it's possible that the caucasian and african groups separated sooner then neanderthals from us.

[Anonymous No.6728091]

>>6728076

Gorilla sex is best sex.

[Anonymous No.6728100]

>>6727965
Well, the bonobo and the chimp are closer genetically to each other than australian aboriginals are to europeans.

But wow I'm not /pol/-tier but I'm surprised at the marxist leanings of some of the posters of this board who deny race.

Hey idiots, it's not the 60s anymore. There's this thing called genetic sequencing1111111 nowadays.

[Anonymous No.6728112]

>>6728100
don't worry, most scientists consider the neanderthal a different species of humans then us, only a couple of retards argue against it.

as for abos... yeah that's a tough one. hell i'm not even sure if africans are the same species as asians and caucasians. in fact not even sure if there is only one species of humans in africa alon.

[Anonymous No.6728119]

>>6727940
>>6727960
where's there a good comparison picture of modern human skulls of different races because there's a fair bit of diversity in H.sapiens skull shape

[Anonymous No.6728126]

>>6728112
well upon further research
>4 macro races of man, 11 major races of man and 115 minor human races of man

>subspecies are seen as geographically isolated and genetically differentiated populations.

so we could just make any number of sub-species for homo sapiens it's pretty much politics, cause there are no clear cut criteria for this classification.

[Anonymous No.6728598]

>>6727744
>http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=19566

>most of their citations are to other papers they've written

[Anonymous No.6728603]

>>6728112
>as for abos... yeah that's a tough one. hell i'm not even sure if africans are the same species as asians and caucasians
Except all the different races of humans are able to interbreed perfectly fine with each other, with no major deformities or sterility in the offspring.

[Anonymous No.6728616]

>>6728603
>no major deformities
>Implying

[Anonymous No.6728620]

>>6728616
Whether you consider someone ugly or not doesn't determine if they're deformed or not. Thanks for playing, though

[Anonymous No.6728702]

>>6728616
>cherry picking

[Anonymous No.6728715]

>>6728100
> bonobo and the chimp are closer genetically to each other than australian aboriginals are to europeans
>comparing 2 different species to 2 subsets of a species with some of the lowest Fst values.

>not /pol/-tier
>being this obvious

>marxist leanings
>I associate everything i don't like with a buzzword

[Anonymous No.6728724]

>>6728112
>>6728100

there's little objective criteria for what classifies different species.

one certain distinction is the ability to successfully interbreed and rear otherwise healthy offspring.

as far as genetic distance, some species will encompass a greater degree of biodiversity in the variety of alleles for any given trait than other species.

what's important is that the full range of biodiversity can be found in all populations.

[Anonymous No.6728734]

>>6728100
You have to be trolling, no one can be this dumb. Also, the reason race isn't taken seriously and is now considered a social construct is BECAUSE of modern genetics.

[Anonymous No.6728737]

>>6728112
>as for abos... yeah that's a tough one. hell i'm not even sure if africans are the same species as asians and caucasians. in fact not even sure if there is only one species of humans in africa alon.

That's because you are a dipshit who can't into any formal definition of species (they would obviously be the same species as us by every definition).

>>6728126
>Pseudoscience from the 1900s.
Can you even into modern science?

[Anonymous No.6728747]

>>6727374
Nice copypasta

[Anonymous No.6728842]

>>6725577

I think a Neanderthal like he the man in the video envisions, would make A GREAT plot device in a horror movie. Or for those who like the FUCK YEAH HUMANITY type of stuff, a great plot device for a sci-fi movie/episode in which biological ancestral forms or ancestors are dealt with. You know what i'm talking about if you've watched your sci-fi.

[Anonymous No.6728848]

>>6725577 (OP)

I think a Neanderthal like the the man in the video envisions, would make A GREAT plot device in a horror movie. Or for those who like the FUCK YEAH HUMANITY type of stuff, a great plot device for a sci-fi movie/episode in which biological ancestral forms or ancestors are dealt with. You know what i'm talking about if you've watched your sci-fi.

[Anonymous No.6728869]

>>6727662
>>6727695
>>6727735
>>6727940
>>6727960
>>6728100
>>6728616

I thought we agreed on some segregation, so go back to
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.6728954]

>>6728869
Who is "we" nigger?

[Anonymous No.6728978]

>>6728954
Everyone on 4chan who agreed that /pol/esmokers belong in a containment board.

[Anonymous No.6728980]

>>6728954
Exactly.
You're on the wrong board
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.6728982]

>>6728954
People interested in actual science vs. pseudoscience

[Anonymous No.6728990]

>>6728869
shitposting.