/homo/ discussion about hominids

What date do you thin the last non homo Sapien homo died?

Every human outside of unmixed blacks has small amount of Neanderthal mixture.

they never did user. they still roam amongst us today.

...

Apparently, Neanderthals were the first human ancestors to begin the practice of burying the dead out of respect. They also engaged in cannibalism, at least occasionally. Their lives were short, and brutal, almost completely consumed for the tasks necessary for survival. They cared enough about each other to try and protect wounded & sick members of their social circle. We know this because we've found Neanderthal fossils showing that instances where a Neanderthal suffered a disabling injury but continued living for a long time after that, which is only possible if somebody else was caring for them. They hunted with crude weapons made from sharpened obsidian. They had basically zero understanding of the natural world. Even the changing of the seasons would have a complete mystery to them, and they did not even have religion yet at this point to take comfort in.

That's about all he said about that. It was short, but interesting, and I would like to learn more about this subject.

Neanderthal twink a CUTE

This is no fun without the text.

these are all just europeans
wtf I love neanderthals now

It's speculated they had some-kind of totemic religion based on bear worship in sacred caves
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear_worship#Palaeolithic_cult

>They had basically zero understanding of the natural world. Even the changing of the seasons would have a complete mystery to them, and they did not even have religion yet at this point to take comfort in.

That would imply they weren't intelligence enough to recognize yearly cycles

I'm not sure a species this close to sapiens would be uncapable of it

that's literally a red haired fin kek.

there's probable some europeanisation bias involve din these statues.

I'm pretty certain they are like the Yak and that asiatic near yak. They are different species but can produce fertile offspring.

>They are different species but can produce fertile offspring.
I'm pretty sure the definition of species is a group of organisms that can produce viable fertile offspring.

And yet everyone but blacks have 2-3% Neanderthal dna. Asians supposedly have more non homo sapiens dna

it depends.

there's a gray line between distant subspecies and species proper. on one edge you have infertile offpsring and stillborns, on the other you have fertile offspring that may or may not have problems

Yeah I was taught that in school too but there are many fertile inter-species offspring, even intergenus.
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_hybrids
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beefalo

CUTE. BRING THEM BACK.

What do you think is going on here guys? territorial dispute? are the ape men scavenging around the Homo campsite and getting told to fuck off? Did one of them try to carry off a Homo qt?

Posting some paleoart

...

>tfw you will never gather up your friends and loved ones and chase European mega-fauna into pit traps
>tfw you never feast on mammoth meat cutting and drying the rest the best you can in order to chase off the specture of starvation

...

For millions of years homonids eeked out an existence at the edges of the food chain until they finally got gud.

For a long time they would have been just one famine/disease/particularly shitty season away from extinction, and we wouldn't be here to shitpost about it.

...

Where the hell did white skin genes come from then?????

Female neanderthals could breed with male humans apparantly

These ones look pretty good.

Not gonna lie, those ones look gross, very glad they aren't around anymore.

I think around 5 to 10 thousand years ago along with colored eyes and blonde hair, it seems a little odd to me especially since we know neanderthals already had pale skin and sometimes red hair.

Has that been proven or is it just a theory

>Not gonna lie, those ones look gross, very glad they aren't around anymore.
There's something pretty eerie about their faces, not quite human or animal at first glance. I am of the opinion (call me a faggot if I'm totally wrong) that the human mind genetically prone to over-recognize vaguely human shapes lurking in the forest and give us a fright. Obviously this would serve our ancestors well. I would hazard this as an explanation for bigfoot.

Whenever I saw pictures like this as a kid or the Australopithecus episode of walking with beasts it would freak me the fuck out.

>Tfw your ancestors BLACKED female Neanderthals

>livescience.com/42838-european-hunter-gatherer-genome-sequenced.html
>sciencemag.org/news/2015/04/how-europeans-evolved-white-skin
>dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3027873/How-white-skin-evolved-Europeans-Pale-complexions-developed-region-8-000-years-ago-study-claims.html

I can't help but think of how horrible it must've been. Even now where I live you can't safely swim in lakes without worrying about deathly amoebas, or ticks hiding in bushes, or snakes and so on. Everyone probably had lice and everyone smelled like ass.

youtube.com/watch?v=uZUJKXs6W-4

Sounds like a bunch of bs. Middle easterns would be lighter skinned if what they are stating is true

Africans have Neanderthal DNA, it's just smaller. It's because the dumbasses who did the tests made the assumption that Africans couldn't have Neanderthal ancestry and thus used them as benchmark
I mean can you really be surprised that whitewashing is occurring. The backlash of showing dark prehistoric non-human who be extreme

We see that in certain middle eastern populations. What we find in northern Europe is the result of population bottlenecks and selection pressures connected with advantages to colder and darker places.

IDK seems like common sense to me, it's strange to here people think light skin in Europe is older than the Neolithic when no study has shown that.

Blue eyes were a thing but they had different Gene's for that than now

Yet no study confirms that

Confirms what? Because both my replies do show that it's just not on whatever backwater websites you must be reading from

What nonsense, neanderthals evolved 300 thousand years ago and they had pale skin and interbred with regular homo sapiens tens of thousands of years ago. Genes for pale skin are atleast as old as that.

Actually it's possibly the other way round. There is no neanderthal mitochondrial DNA in modern populations, would would prove inter-species fertility between Sapiens men and Neanderthal women. But that could just have occurred with the unbroken female lines dying out.

sciencemag.org/news/2016/04/modern-human-females-and-male-neandertals-had-trouble-making-babies-here-s-why

Why do human women crave the BNC?

>This guy comes to your cave and starts to make his suggestive grunting noises at all the cave babes, and you do nothing because Neanderthals are significantly stronger that Sapiens, how Sapiens even compete.

That Africans have Neanderthal dna

You might find this interesting
>First they were like
bbc.com/news/science-environment-34479905
>But then
nature.com/news/error-found-in-study-of-first-ancient-african-genome-1.19258

when you will never have a neanderthal qt gf

but cro magnons are basically modern european sapiens.

Both of those reports on MOTA are wrong, their entire process is incorrect.

Basically it's yet again westerners continuing outdated models of viewing African populations
evoandproud.blogspot.com/2012/02/were-there-neanderthals-in-africa.html?m=1

This all came from Paabo's dumbass assumption about paleo-migration.

The first one is a Neanderthal child, so if you think she's attractive, you're a pedophile. The others are oddly pale Cro-Mags, also known as modern humans.

>Cro-Magnons
>pale

>All Neandertal infused societies thrive
>All Pure bred Homo sapiens have trouble
My God, they were the smart ones

While nicely drawn, these are very outdated, especially .

Memes aside, why isn't there a movie about different hominin species fighting each other? Homo erectus versus Homo sapiens in Asia, Homo erectus vs Homo habilis or Paranthropus bosei, or whatever.

Ah yes, because Inuits, Melanesians, Papua New Guineans, Australian Aboriginals, Negritos, stone age Native Americans (mostly in the jungles of South America who are nearly extinct), and Polynesians are so technologically advanced user.

Sorry for being rude, but most of humanity having Neanderthal DNA (which actually affected their overall physical health by 10%) has nothing to do with overall success. Neanderthals had the jump on us for nearly 200,000 years, and stagnated until we came along. Their sister species the Denisovans were just about the same too. I'm not sure why, but if Africans somehow had the most Neanderthal DNA (instead they have the least, but it's not outright 0%), people would use that against them.

To be fair, they probably have lots of Junk from African hominids we don't have fossils of. Also, where does that 200,000 figure come from, and does it account for the recent readjustment of H. sapiens sapiens in the geologic time scale?

I thought this was going to be a thread about homosexuality.

Could ancient hominids have been gay?

Homo homos

...

I had a Botany Textbook that described early humans as Man-Apes, and thought that was pretty funny

Homo sapiens must have looked like twinks to neanderthals

>If Africans somehow had the most Neanderthal DNA (instead they have the least, but it's not outright 0%), people would use that against them

This. Actually people used to say Europeans were the "original race" and every other race was an aberration.

It's actually more like a refinement, like Gold from dross

youtube.com/watch?v=FZ65yIih5Zk
youtube.com/playlist?list=PL88904B377D0F09DB
These are the closest I could find. There's Walking With Cavemen, but I cxan't find anything online.

The split between Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis is anywhere between 400,000 and 600,000 years old, and there are some fossils that are intermediate between H. heidelbergensis and H. neanderthalensis during that era, just like that 300,000 year old "archaic Homo sapiens" skull from Morocco.

By the way, was that actually Homo sapiens, but the most primitive form of Homo sapiens, just like how there's some remarkably different looking skulls that all belong to Homo erectus?

Well, all Denisovans, Neandertals and Sapiens are actually H. sapiens, so it really doesn't matter.
It was H. sapiens regardless whether it was an antique H.sapiens sapiens or a intermediate neandertal

Oh and I forgot to mention, but you're spot on about an unknown African species mating with Homo sapiens.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3426505/

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3174671/

The same thing happened with the ancestors of the Melanesians and Once/Jarawa/various other Pacific Islanders, with yet another unknown human species. So that's what, 4 species in all, only two that we know about via fossils, and out of those two we have far more fossils for Neanderthals. 1It was practically a fantasy world.

sciencealert.com/pacific-islanders-appear-to-be-carrying-the-dna-of-an-unknown-human-species

>gap left by the sapien dark ages

And now the Neanderthal Stellar arrays of Andromeda sit in ruins. By the Cosmic Cave Bear, how horrifying

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_heidelbergensis

I disagree with all of them being the exact same species, especially with Denisovans actually being closer to Neanderthals than us. If they really are, then Homo heidelbergensis needs to be changed to Homo sapiens heidelbergensis, because that is the species Sapiens, Neanderthals, and Denisovans all stemmed from. I'm guessing you're calling them all the same species because they can breed with each other and have fertile children, but what about non-hominids like coyotes and wolves, or polar bears and brown bears? Hell, there is an actual confirmed subspecies of Homo sapiens called Idaltu, it lived in Ethiopia 160,000 years ago, and had a bigger brain and was more robust physically.

Do you guys consider only the genus Homo to be humans? I think the definition should be extended to Australopithecines like the Australopithicus and Paranthropus genera.

They're necessarily the same species by the biological species concept. Since the bulk of humans are actually Hybrids of the three, then they could interbreed and produce viable progeny, that's what a species is.
Also, I'd argue for a Species Lineage.
If you consider Heidelbergensis to be conspecific with Rhodensis, which I do, then I would agree that Heidelbergensis represents an unbroken lineage between all recent and hybrid H. sapiens subspecies.
If so, that puts the age of Human sapiens at .6 million years, which is still young for any species.
I wouldn't contest that one bit.

Isn't Rhodesiensis considered a subspecies of Heidelbergensis anyway? At least, that's what I thought. Oh, and let's not forget the more confusing human species, like Antcessor, which depending on who you're talking to, is either a dead-end relative of Homo erectus, an oddly flat faced relative or subspecies of Heidelbergensis, or none of the above. It didn't help that their faces were relatively similar to ours, a lot flatter than most human species.

IIRC, the Smithsonian uses "early human" as a sort of catch-all term for anything within the hominin line.

Rhodensis is actually just considered an African representative of Heidelbergensis. They're probably the same thing. Honestly, I think our lineage is a pretty straight shot from Ergaster to Us, with relatively little straying.
It would take a lot for you to convince me that any of the Heidelbergensis derivatives actually truly speciated. At that point, you're talking about a complex mammal speciation in relative proximity over 100,000 years.
Antcessor is probably just a dead end, as we're discovering rapidly that there were other homo lineages all about. Look at Naledi.

IIRC even sub-saharan blacks have a tiny amount of Neanderthal DNA in them and abos are the purest genetic humans.

This triggers me, because the robust Australopithecines are certainly not ancestral to humans, and our ancestors did not have sagittal crests.

nah, most habilines were Australopithecus like(apes). only erectus-sapiens are humans in muh opinion.

Abos are hopped up on Denisovan alleles.

Take it easy, their companion book explains it better (bit dated, from 2010)

Who /red deer cave people/ here?

Ypipo be albinos baka

Most Chimps do actually have light skin. It's probably not homologous, but it is interesting.
Bonobos have black skin, though

Can I get a quick rundown on these paleolithic bogs?

They've also had this pop up more than once.

>Be monkey
>Be covered in hair
>Still go bald
Also, why do we have moustaches? No other primates do

They do, it's just not noticable with everything else taking up most of our attention. Heck, that chimp I posted had a bit of it, but not much.

Even his Moustache area is thin. I think it may have to do with how reduced our muzzle is compared to them. That or we just selected for cool moustaches.
Also, if artificial selection is the cause of such rapid physiological derivation in Humans, can you really call it artificial?

Humans are one of the few mammals to not have whiskers, but instead "useless" mustaches. Chimpanzees have very short whiskers like and , for example.

>Human advancement is due to rapid degradation of Basal ape genes
>Human chromosome 2 is actually 2 ape chromosomes jammed together, which didn't kill the poor fucker who it first happened to
What did God mean by this?

There's two different White skin genes which cause non-blackness and combined they result in the pale phenotype, although some other genes play a role too but aren't fixed or as effective.
Middle easterners only have one of them at high rates while the other is more exclusive to Europeans.

...

Middle easterners are as light skinned as south europeans

No the only subsaharan blacks that have Neanderthal mixture are ones that have eurasian mixture from back to africa migrations like Horn populations (Ethiopians, somalis etc...)

>she