If Australian aborigines had been extinct before contact and known to us only from fossil records...

They are heavily related to southern indians

They are considered human

False

It's actually just a few Abos that look like cavemen. Most of them look like Indians (Dravidians).

False. Their genome is similar to that of H.sapiens sapiens populations, minus the presence of Neanderthalensis DNA, which is present in Asia and Europe (and only the Maasai in Africa). Then you have the whole debate regarding FOX2P which is an enzyme relating to vocalization and which probably reached humans through Neanderthal/Human crossbreeding, which is also present on aborigines.

Really getting sick of this "Europeans are Neanderthals cucked by African males" meme forced by the White Nationalists fetishists from BlackedFront and /pol/

Europeans don't have excess Neanderthal admixture over other Eurasian populations because Europe was the deepest of genetic sinks for the longest time so modern Europeans have no meaningful genetic relationship to the excess Neandethal admixed Cro-Magnons.

nature.com/nature/journal/v534/n7606/full/nature17993.html

The paper states natural selection as the reason for the decline in Neanderthal admixture but whether true or not has no relevance to the mass replacement circa 14k BC nor events which occurred after like Neolithic revolution and the Indo-European mass migration.

Bottom line is stop masturbating to the idea of African men cucking Neanderthals to create /pol/acks because it's fucking gay and cringy.

> thinly veiled /pol/ thread no. 4643187

Why don't you just fuck off? Sage goes in the options field, ppl.

An honest question about possible taboos and double standards in scientific world.

Why do people keep making phrenology threads on the history board?

>an honest question

Fuck off /pol/

If people are allowed to discuss debunked 19th century ideologies like Marxism constantly we should be able to discuss debunked 19th century anthropology theories as well :^)

>never tried
>debunked

Stormniggers don't read, MUH HURRRTIUGE overrides all. You can't stop people powered by interracial fetishes.

they would probably have been classified as a closely related separate sub-species which is what they are

False. That picture is actually a good example why. The aboriginal skull doesn't look that different from the other two (especially compared to other hominin species), and exhibits all of the standard Homo sapiens traits.

Fun fact: Australian Aborigines have extremely high Visual IQs
this is probably an adaptation to living in the Australian outback for tens of thousands of years
academia refuses to accept that this is caused by genetics and adaptation though
because then they would have to be accepted that Aborigines remarkably low general IQs is also caused by genetics

read this abstract for some top tier mental gymnastics
tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00049538608259009

>The genetic hypothesis is therefore abandoned.
kek

Yeah, I've read about their god tier tracking skills.

This is all highly controversial but it's supposed to go like this according to the people who came up with the three intelligence types thing.

Jews Verbal/Math
East Asians Math/Visual
Europeans Verbal/Visual
Africans Verbal
Abos Visual

>because then they would have to be accepted that Aborigines remarkably low general IQs is also caused by genetics
Did you even read that abstract? The genetic hypothesis wasn't abandoned for no reason, a better alternative was proposed. The researchers came to the conclusion that the difference is caused by the preservation of traditional childrearing techniques, which teach those skills. And that conclusion makes a lot of sense, considering the mound of evidence showing that performance on IQ-types tests is heavily influenced by cultural factors.

Whether or not you want to accept that, or the conclusion of the paper you cited (which again, isn't doing what you seem to think it is), is up to you.

>. The researchers came to the conclusion that the difference is caused by the preservation of traditional childrearing techniques, which teach those skills.
That's bullshit though, to be dismissed out of hand.

>he researchers came to the conclusion that the difference is caused by the preservation of traditional childrearing techniques, which teach those skills.
user, Abos in cities are unemployed, live in public housing, sniff petrol and abuse their children
they aren't bearing the torch of to some groundbreaking child raising technique that the rest of the world has missed out on

the researchers said that the data supported the genetic hypothesis
they abandoned that hypothesis for ideological reasons, and came up with the half baked environmental cause to replace it

>Suggestions are made for cross-cultural research on child-rearing and its cognitive effects in both Aboriginal and White Australian groups.
notice how that research never happened

>never tried

>considering the mound of evidence showing that performance on IQ-types tests is heavily influenced by cultural factors.
proofs?

Reading comprehension is important.
>the researchers said that the data supported the genetic hypothesis
No they didn't.

>This difference was seen to support a genetic hypothesis, on the assumption that non-traditional Aboriginal children were reared like White Australian children. It is now apparent that this assumption is unjustified

>they abandoned that hypothesis for ideological reasons, and came up with the half baked environmental cause to replace it
No it wasn't.

>It is now apparent that this assumption is unjustified, and that many traditional child-rearing practices are maintained by non-traditional Aboriginal people, even of the city, which may be important for the development of particular cognitive skills. The genetic hypothesis is therefore abandoned.

>notice how that research never happened
That's how academic papers like this work. They discuss small research projects and make comments about what the research means and recommendations about hw the findings can better be incorporated into the field as a whole. Plus, that's just an abstract. Making comments on the quality of an article based on its abstract is beyond stupid, especially if you're completely misinterpreting what it's actually saying.

It's like you people have never read scientific literature before and don't know how it works.

True

politics infect science a lot

>blank slate reductionism is still considered proper science in 2017

the enlightenment was a mistake

>WAAAAAAAAAAAH they aren't comparing skull shapes and concluding niggers are inferior BAD SCIENCE BAAAAADDDDD

i love the salty stromnigger M-M-M-M-M-MUH TABULA RASA tears as you continue to flunk your anthropology classes

First result on google:
apa.org/monitor/feb03/intelligence.aspx

Follow the citations and go from there. In general, lots of research has been done on this. I know most people reading this post probably won't accept that, but it's not my job to convince you or do your research for you. Pick up some books on cultural psychology or something like that.

What's storm nigger about noting that abos are dumb as a box of rocks and generally look like cavemen throwbacks?

Nothing.

>Oh god no science might say something that doesn't fit my worldview, better shun it real quick

Jesus christ you people are cancer

>What's stormnigger about being a stormnigger
>Every1 shud agree wid me with no argument

Man, it's classic when the man is dumber than the people he's condemning.

Possibly true, the Dingo is classified as a separate subspecies from Domestic Dogs even though they separated only 4000 years ago, Abos would at least be classified as a separate subspecies too.

Canis Lupus Familiaris itself is classified as a subspecies of grey wolf.

Whatever brah, you're acting as if there is conclusive proof that abo child rearing skills lead to a ridiculously high visual acuity, the day that's reproduced with non abo children is the day I will believe it.

show me the aboriginal-white australian adoption study that would actually support this child-rearing hypothesis

so far all the evidence I've seen seems to support the genetic hypothesis

Dingoes are a junior synonym for canis familiaris. Domesticated species can't form a subspecies.

>My confirmation bias overrides your reason!!!

I could show you an abo solving the EPR paradox and you'd still find a way to call it a nigger.

daily reminder that the only other group with IQs as low as Aboriginal Australians are literally 150cm tall
>inb4 it's just diet, rulers are not culture blind we reject the genetic hypothesis for their height
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Pygmies

>I could show you an abo solving the EPR paradox and you'd still find a way to call it a nigger.
you couldn't do that, because you would have trouble finding an aboriginal with an IQ above 100
they are like 2.5 standard deviations below the European average

>only from fossil records
neanderthals were almost classified as homo sapiens, but then we found out mixes were unable to have offspring 50% of the time
i can't find a proper soucre on aboriginal iq

in fact i found a fairly lengthy paper that says their iq is actually ~85 (at the lowest!)
they score between 0.3 and 1.2 SD's below white australians

by andrew leigh and xiadong gong (april 2008)

why does /pol/ lie

There's less evidence for the environmental hypothesis than the genetic one. Obviously though, genetics are affected by environmental factors over a long period of time. So abos, who were completely geographically isolated from other humans for thousands of years, in a different environment, will develop different genetic skills than Asians or Europeans.

evolution doesn't effect the brain you racist

>various people across the world have shown signs of their bodies&genetics adopting to stuff like living on high altitudes where oxygen content of air is lower than on the sea level and nobody denies it
>yet when anyone dares to suggest that environmental pressures might have long term effect on how humans brains develop over generations everyone loses their shit

Pretty interesting desu.

>There's less evidence for the environmental hypothesis than the genetic one.
Do you have any proof of that besides something from /pol/? Because the only scientific article mentioned in this thread says that the genetic hypothesis was just an assumption based on misconceptions about education.

you should read and find genetic or not genetic, the gap between white and abo australians isn't fucking 38 points

researchgate.net/publication/226651711_Estimating_Cognitive_Gaps_Between_Indigenous_and_Non-Indigenous_Australians

"It is also sometimes mistakenly stated that the 1967 referendum overturned a "Flora and Fauna Act", which supposedly mandated that indigenous Australians were governed and managed under the same portfolio as Australian wildlife – New South Wales state MP Linda Burney made mention of such an act in her maiden speech in 2003,[14] as did Mark Colvin in a 2007 ABC article.[15] A 2014 SBS article described the notion that "Indigenous people were classed as fauna" as a "myth", listing it as one of "four key misunderstandings persist[ing] about modern Indigenous history"

Apparantely it's a "myth"
Either your law class is teaching bullshit or you weren't paying attention and they were talking about how it WAS a myth

that quote was taken from a wiki page on something about an australian referendum

You tell me.
purplekoolaid.typepad.com/my_weblog/homo-erectus-just-another-race.html

can't tell if bait, or genuinely ideologically retarded.

No literally all look like cavemen

Actually "taught" or it was just mentioned by some dumbass sjw TA?

Never seen a modern man with an almost nonexistant forehead (save for the Zika children).

Maybe not separate species but possibly subspecies or at least as an archaic sapiens form(possibly even neanderthaloid hybrids) kinda like the Skhul-Qafzeh remains of Israel.

Or the Balangoda people.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balangoda_Man

>but possibly subspecies
not even
Fst between rest of humanity and them isn't large enough

And Pygmies area a super underclass who are only short because it benefited them in the past. Funnily enough not all pygmies are super short.

>>yet when anyone dares to suggest that environmental pressures might have long term effect on how humans brains develop over generations everyone loses their shit

Those "explanations" are always the most adhoc horribly constructed reasoning's ever usually hinging on difficulty in some autistic argument.

"large enough" is pretty relative but I was thinking about a skull with without DNA available, so just based on taxonomy

100% true, also if neanderthals were still around they would be considered just another ethnicity

They already were classified as throwbacks back when Darwinism was the hot new thing.

is this true in reverse, would neanderthals still be a race if they remained present?

...

Genetically we'd have to expand the definition of H.Sapien to include them, but that wouldn't be crazy considering how diverse our genus is.

Well no because they can *readily* make fertile offspring (I say "readily" because the existence of neanderthal DNA in some humans

What you mean is stop pointing out how niggers have no neanderthal dna?

Manlets lel

Neanderthals and H.Sapiens were easily capable of producing fertile offspring, but this is just one criteria for defining what are relatively fuzzy genus distinctions.

Generally, we distinguish species and subspecies when it's scientifically useful to do so, and often err on the side of caution by over-categorising. It's not useful to categorise Aboriginals (or any other extant human group) as a separate subspecies.

>2.5 standard deviations

This was only pureblood coons in tribal areas of the NT. Today most of them have IQs similar to African Americans, a little lower, read the Flynn studies. He sets it at 82.

I agree it sounds like bullshit, but dismissing things out of hand and posting a reaction face is not science, it's feels and confirmation bias. You could at least read what you dismiss.

Amusing as they are, caricatures are not an argument, nor do the ones you mention (which are more caused by poor impulse control than anything) preclude cultural factors being able to raise the aboriginal visual memory IQ somewhat. I'm not saying genetics isn't a factor but there are a lot or things about aboriginal culture that are very "visual" (they more often use nonverbal gestures in speech compared to whites in my experience) so I wouldnt be surprised if it was a factor, childbirth shenanigans or not.

I don't know about aborigines, but /pol/acks are definitely homos in a different class of their own.

holy fucking shit

same with niggers

>shape isn't everything, it's how the skull is put together that counts
So... shape?

>I think humans are too recent to turn up in the fossil record.

I think you're scientifically illiterate...

Rather than start a new thread: what does Veeky Forums think about the Stolen Generation(s)? Fact or fiction?

>it
freudian slip much?

Homo sapiens and neanderthals couldn't have children 50% of the time so no

>fossil records
What am I reading?
& Humanities strikes again

As far as iv'e understood, the children were simply taken into custody because they were constantly abused and had living conditions not fit for dogs. Same happened with white trash too, abos were just shitty parents.

>were
We had to do it again a few years ago. They rape and beat each other and their children, we give them free stuff, their community leaders complain that they're underprivileged, we give them more free stuff, continue.