Cro-magnons

evidence is mixed. autosomal dna evidence improves significantly every year.

keep in mind though, that we split INSIDE of africa a good deal before we left africa.

modern africans are the result of an event called the bantu expansion, in which africans that you thnk of as africans, spread throughout africa and genocided all of the other peoples south of the sahara, ending somewhere around the deserts in namibia, whic hwere impassable.

before the bantu expansion, african populations lacked the ability to cross rivers, for example.

we were probably separated from the populations which would become the bantu for a good 30k years before we even left africa.

the neanderthal admixture event happened about 70k years ago. you could say we diverged from blacks at that point, because we might not have been phenotypically different yet (it's hard to say.) but at that point we'd already developed separate haplotype markers.

in a purely genetic sense, the divergence happened around 100k years ago

>humans from 100k years ago probably did not have more than 60 iq points on average.

That's really not the best way to think about human intelligence. IQ tests were designed to test a specific set of cognitive functions that are mostly encountered by people in industrialized societies (which is why IQ test have gone up with increased access to technology). In the early twentieth century, lots of farmers and manual laborers who immigrated from Europe were considered retarded due to poor IQ test scores that were the result of their lack of familiarity with industrial society.

Humans from 100,000 years ago were biologically identical to us and would have had the exact same capacity for intelligence. If you plopped one into a modern society, yeah, they'd fail, because its' not what they're used to. If you raised one in modern society, they'd do fine. It's all about what they're exposed to and what their brains develop to handle.

true, it's outdated, because we have autosomal dna evidence now, and we don't need to classify based on phylogenic trees

that said it's generally accepted that cro-magnons were replaced (mostly violently) with proto-european farmers, who were then replaced with r1b europeans by sex.

calling them modern is really just a political battle. they were probably 70 iq cannibals. if they weren't we probably would have had more sex with them lke with neanderthals.

Europeans from about 35000 years ago start to have important affinity with modern Europeans, especially northern Europeans who kept more of the mesolithic European affinities, even if they also got important contributions from near east related folks, even though the near easterness of these people is often exaggerated i.e neolithic Anatolians depending on how you model things were still about half or more related to European foragers likely from the Balkan ice age refuge, and those further mixed with local folks as they moved west and north.

Moreover, the migration of steppe folks associated with the spread of aryan languages also seemingly brought important Siberian contribution to the European gene pool that was otherwise fairly absent at least in mainland west Europe.

>given the above, it's almost impossible not to conclude that cro-magnons were signifcantly less intelligent. they had smaller brains, and their skeletons resemble something partially between apes and humans.

kek

This is your authority on early modern man speaking. GL OP (this guy is a dumbass)

u wot

intelligence is inherently genetic, buddy. genetic capacity for iq and height continues to increase even if you starve and beat people.

if you starve a litter of puppies, they'll grow up small, but I guarantee you the biggest of them will have larger babies than the smallest of a starved litter.

premodern man was NOT anywhere near as intelligent as us in capacity. you're telling yourself a pleasant lie.

if you have a theory
1. everything is EXACTLY THE SAME. EXACTLY. COMPLETELY FUCKING UNIFORM
and 2. everything is different. we don't know HOW different, but we do know it's different, and that those small differences can add up into smething larger

then the burden of proof on claim 1, which is your claim, is fucking astronomical

Semi related question: What is the difference between Humans and Denisovans / Neanderthals and Denisovans?

In other words: What are Denisovans?

im pretty interested in the red deer cave people but i cant find much info on them

denisovans were a type of premodern man. we don't have more than a few teeth, but they were likely HIGHLY divergent from other hominids.

modern south east asians have extremely minor amounts of admixture

ones more of a cancerous virus upon the land than the other

live in harmony and all that georgia guidestones bis

>intelligence is inherently genetic,

No, it isn't. A lot of things contribute to intelligence. Genetics is one of them, but there's no proof it's even the main contributor.

ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/traits/intelligence

Seriously, nothing I wrote was "astronomically" unprovable. It's the mainstream view in science right now. Here's even a source for my claims about intelligence testing on immigrants (it's a page about the guy who did the tests - a eugenicist - but you can do more research if you want): study.com/academy/lesson/henry-goddard-eugenicist-inheritability-intelligence-quiz.html

There are more places to learn about intelligence testing and development than /pol/. IQ tests have been under fire for a long time and many psychologists view them as having limited use at best. And even beyond them, the more research that goes into intelligence development shows how complicated it is. Genetics are only a very small part according to the scientists who actually study this stuff.

Were they intelligent? What was the difference in their evolution from ours?

...

The fingerbone that was found to belong to a denisovan was t h i c c, and thought to have belonged to a male, but surprisingly belonged to a juvenile female, indicating that they may have been robust like neanderthals.

so you're telling me that there are a variety of genes out there, and in all that variety, somehow, those genes manage to either DO NOTHING, or DO the thing EXACTLY THE SAME NO MATTER WHAT CONFIGURATION THEY'RE IN.

you're telling me that genes play no role in the formation of intelligent life

OR

that completely different sets of building blocks, in a variety of arrangements, ALL COME TO THE EXACT SAME RESULT

wew
lad

no clue. we've only found teeth. teeth aren't nearly enough to know.

>neolith
>neanderthal
Wat

Oh please, everyone knows Lucy was a hexapod.

>we don't know if neanderthals were smarter than (unadmixed) sapien sapiens.

Definitely less.

I"m not telling you anything that any geneticist or biological anthropologist wouldn't tell you. Seriously, stop acting like I'm making ridiculous claims. I'm not, this is basic, commonly accepted science at this point. Genetics play some role, but it's one of many factors that play a role, and depending on cases, it may play a small one; intelligence (as in IQ) also isn't the best way to understand overall cognitive function. I provided the most mainstream source possible, and there are tons of other ones out there. Stop getting your information from /pol/, there's a wide world of actual science out there.

Where did I ever bring up Neanderthals? Cro-Magnons weren't Neanderthals, they were biologically modern humans.