[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

If you can see this message, the SSL certificate expiration has been fixed.
Become a Patron!

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 227 KB, 600x600, smug anime face.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9981178 No.9981178 [DELETED]  [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

>all humans have a common ancestor you racist


Lol you guys must feel pretty stupid

>> No.9981194

>>all humans have a common ancestor you racist
Who are you quoting?

>> No.9981203

I read through your link OP and it doesn't disprove the fact all humans have a common ancestor.

>> No.9981205

Its the implication, when liberals arguing for more immigration say we're all african.

>> No.9981206


and the common ancestor lived in africa

>> No.9981209

>The view that Homo sapiens evolved from a single region/population within Africa has been given primacy in studies of human evolution. However, developments across multiple fields show that relevant data are no longer consistent with this view. We argue instead that Homo sapiens evolved within a set of interlinked groups living across Africa, whose connectivity changed through time. Genetic models therefore need to incorporate a more complex view of ancient migration and divergence in Africa. We summarize this new framework emphasizing population structure, outline how this changes our understanding of human evolution, and identify new research directions.
>We argue instead that Homo sapiens evolved within a set of interlinked groups living across Africa
>I read through your link OP and it doesn't disprove the fact all humans have a common ancestor.
U wot m8?

>> No.9981217

you’re an effing brainlet

back to /pol/

>> No.9981220

and he supported israel

>> No.9981221


It still doesn't disprove that all humans share a common ancestor.

>/pol/ weeb autist dont understand evolution

>> No.9981226
File: 51 KB, 572x532, racereality.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


well the funny thing is that the out of africa theory cements the fact even further that blacks are more archaic than other homo sapiens.

>> No.9981227

Is the common human ancestor also common to neanderthals, etc.?

>> No.9981228
File: 317 KB, 934x1600, races3.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.9981231

Its saying in the article that homo sapiens emerged in africa through various different groups. If you want to go back millions of years to when we're monkeys sure we might have something closer to a common ancestor though that would no longer be within the same species. To say there was once a single homo sapien group though that we all emerged out of is wrong though.

>> No.9981232



>> No.9981233

fine, i know he prefered the "he, him, his" pronouns, but clearly the common ancestor was assigned the female sex at birth

>> No.9981234


we get it okay, we know blacks are archaic and have very low IQ scores.


>> No.9981235

By these anons' standards

>> No.9981236

Friendly reminder that racism outside of /b/ is a rule violation.

>> No.9981239

We still are monkeys and always will be. We’re also fish.

>> No.9981246


We're apes, not monkeys.


>Stating facts is racism


>> No.9981252

>We're apes, not monkeys.

The apes, great apes and lesser, are either nested within “Old world monkeys” or a sister group of them. Regardless, the “New World Monkeys” diverged earlier than this, and since two groups of monkey cannot come from something that wasn’t a monkey itself, we have three options.

A. New world monkeys are not really monkeys, only Old World Monkeys are, excluding apes from being monkeys if apes are a sister group rather than nested within OWM.
B. Old world monkeys are not really monkeys, only New World Monkeys are, excluding “apes” from being monkeys.
C. Both Old world monkeys and new world monkeys are monkeys, meaning apes must be monkeys too.
D. Monkeys do not exist at all taxonomically, and the word is nothing but informal.

>> No.9981259


So mainstream science DOES agree that there are many species of man.

>> No.9981261

....No, you retard. Do you see any reproductive isolation between Homo sapiens?

>> No.9981265

This shit is so fucking annoying.
Racism is trash and you're all trash if you are racist.

>> No.9981266

You realize the paper you posted argues we're all African right?

>> No.9981268

can we all agree that this is a very persistent troll who needs to fuck off and die back to /pol/?

>> No.9981269

I mean if we’re going to be reductionist then we’re Pangean because our ancestors ran around Pangaea once.

>> No.9981270

Apparently there was no reproductive isolation between homo sapiens and neanderthals and denisovians (sp?)

So :p

>> No.9981276

Neanderthals were less speciated from us than horses are from zebras because we could produce fertile offspring together and zebras and horses cannot despite being able to reproduce, but Neanderthal males were infertile to sapiens females, whereas Neanderthal females were fertile to sapiens males. No such issues occur in modern populations of what we’d call “humans:.

>> No.9981285

No, it means humans originated in Africa.

>> No.9981293

big if true

>> No.9981295

While some modern human nuclear DNA has been linked to the extinct Neanderthals, no mitochondrial DNA of Neanderthal origin has been detected,[15] which in primates is always maternally transmitted. This observation has prompted the hypothesis that whereas female humans interbreeding with male Neanderthals were able to generate fertile offspring, the progeny of female Neanderthals who mated with male humans were either rare, absent or sterile.[129]


>> No.9981327

>what is scientifically classified as homo sapiens emerged among separate groups that were already significantly genetically isolated from each other prior to spreading across the world

why are leftists so low iq?

>> No.9981331

Really? I thought it was the other way around. I stand corrected, it seems.

>> No.9981332
File: 1.32 MB, 320x239, giphy.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>his species havent even built (one) dyson sphere

>> No.9981334

Go back to /pol/.

>> No.9981336

perhaps you were confusing the lack of neanderthal y chromosomes with it
just like the lack of mitochondrial dna, no neanderthal y chromosomes have been found implying the same genetic sterility thing and/or very thorough genocide of them

>> No.9981338

go back to tumblr sweetie if you can't handle facts

>> No.9981340

Almost all humans except folks living in africa have neanderthal dna also East asians even more neanderthal dna than white people.

>> No.9981342

Racism is not supported by the scientific consensus, unfortunately for you. It’s also a rule violation to be racist outside of /b/, so scuttle along now. :-)

>> No.9981347

If the facts I posted are racist then science is racist.

>> No.9981363

>Implying the mods on this shithole give a fuck

Also poor bait , 2/10 because I replied.

>> No.9981364
File: 23 KB, 652x337, scrcp.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Trends in Ecology & Evolution
>Volume 33, Issue 8, August 2018, Pages 582-594
>Did Our Species Evolve in Subdivided Populations across Africa, and Why Does It Matter?




are you fucking kidding me

>> No.9981367

Get btfo brainlet its in the opinion section

There's more to papers than the abstract btw

Why is pol so low IQ

>> No.9981373
File: 16 KB, 623x461, scrcp0.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

the abstract says right there in the third sentence:
>We argue instead that Homo sapiens evolved within a set of interlinked groups living across Africa

so it's not even that much. it's just the first sentence. and you apparently didn't read the whole abstract either, you fuck.

>> No.9981376

>says there's more to a paper then its abstract
>can't even read past the heading

>> No.9981381

it would work better if we were the same person. he just rehashed what i said but with /sci/ memes.

>> No.9981390

I mean if you want to disregard the paper simply because its in the opinion section that's up to you. It doesn't disprove anything they say that is backed up with evidence.

The fact that you could read that and missed
>whose connectivity changed throughout time
shows this is either b8 or you're very biased lol.

>> No.9981408

ok i mean i'm not sure why you replied to me with that common knowledge

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.