Preface

It really sounds like you're being sarcastic, because I don't want to discuss IQ but anatomical differences are indisputable.

Wrong.

they're a sub-species of the genus Homo.

Not the species homo-sapien

There has been homo-?? in history. Humans are the only ones that survived humanity
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo

Those differences aren't enough to constitute a different species you daft cunt

You're not understanding just how different Neanderthals were appearance wise.

You're agreeing with me, user. I never said they were Homo Sapiens Sapiens. They're apart of the genus "Homo", which means "Human".

...

better image

Sorry, i is da stoopids

Genus is not species numb nuts

We have no Denisovan skulls, we have absolutely zero idea what their heads looked like. Whoever made that picture was a fuckhead

...

The Jews know. They accidentally leaked that pic early.

Both neanderthals and cromagnons had a larger cranial volume than humans and cromagnons had a similar cephalic index.

Do you think this isn't a substantial difference? Do you have any expertise on human anatomy?

I'm not disagreeing, but the different homos are considered separate species, at least by some.

Always trips me out to consider that Neanderthals could have been more intelligent than humans, just beaten out by our ability to throw objects while they couldn't.

My other choice for a thread theme was 'how does it feel knowing you're not even the best type of human to ever exist'.

Was it their rotator cuff though? Or something to do with their joints? I don't see it, perhaps I'm looking at wrong depictions. It also read there were likely never more than 70,000 neanderthals at any time ever, so we could have theoretically just zerg rushed them.

Not that different

Something to do with their shoulders and upper arms, don't remember exactly what. I think it's pretty interesting that the most intelligent group of humans on Earth strongly resembles neanderthals in the face with strong brow ridges, prognatism, large noses and sloping foreheads. I'm sure it's just an interesting coincidence though.

He looks like he's got a mix, but he's still a homo sapien.

I don’t mean to be pedantic, but it’s sapiens, not sapien, dude.

not just that you know, they had some real trouble giving birth because of the size of their skulls.

Larger skulls don't fit as easily through birth canals. Also the distance between us and them is less than that between chimp sub-species.

Why would evolution play such a cruel joke on them? Literally
>tfw to smart to exist

>no studies on neanderthal dna in jewish populations
just tell me how to get the phenotype ashkenazi women crave

...

But seriously, could you imagine if history really just was just the story of an intelligent species of man nearly wiped out by another species of man because he could throw spears better than the latter species of man.

Then still clinging on for 40,000 years as hybrids in closely knit tribes corresponding to their last known territory, they infiltrated and subverted the other man's civilization in order to enslave all of them?

I'm speaking hypothetically of course

Wrong, Cro-Mags are literally modern Homo sapiens sapiens.

We might kinda know user.

sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/ancient-skulls-may-belong-elusive-humans-called-denisovans

If this is legit, they had huge skulls to fit their massive teeth, and might have been larger than both Neanderthals and Sapiens.

They were actually only "roughly" as smart as us. Superior in some areas, inferior in others. They sure as hell weren't stupid proto-humans, not even Homo erectus was considerable stupid.

>think it's pretty interesting that the most intelligent group of humans on Earth strongly resembles neanderthals in the face with strong brow ridges, prognatism, large noses and sloping foreheads.

Oh here we go. The same cucks who said Neanderthals were ape men closer to the "primitive" Africans and Australian Aboriginals are also saying that they were in fact superior to all humans.

>weren't considered a "different" species
they were at one point, Neanderthal at least.

>just modern humans
they were technically more robust, taller than us on average, and had larger brain capacities.

>the public at large can't take this stuff
how convenient, fucking elitists

>no facial bones and DNA hasn't been sequenced yet

FUCK

Really interesting though, looks promising.

>said Neanderthals were ape men closer to the "primitive" Africans and Australian Aboriginals
nobody said this

Neanderthals are still considered a different species in the same way polar bears and brown bears are, or wolves/dogs and coyotes. Besides, we couldn't breed with Neanderthals that easily. It appears that male Neanderthals and female Homo sapiens couldn't have fertile children, but the exact opposite could.

>I read a wikipedia article, and now I know more about genetics than a geneticist.
The earliest wave of homo sapiens migration out of Africa was about 100 thousand years ago. This is a minuscule amount of time from the perspective of evolution. If pockets of homo sapiens had remained isolated for more than 500 thousand years, then maybe we'd be getting something close to a new species. As it stands, you're retarded.

What? Who says this?

Or user, the reason why we only have DNA passed down from female neanderthals is because humans killed the males and raped the females

>The earliest wave of homo sapiens migration out of Africa was about 100 thousand years ago.

Just so you know, that was East Africans, not all Africans. As in, all Africans do not come from the same population that populated the rest of the planet.

You'd say that we're more than 200,000 years diverged biologically? Wow and only 2,000 years divergent in tech levels.

>still considered a different species in the same way polar bears and brown bears are, or wolves/dogs and coyotes
incorrect, they're closer to us than different chimp sub-species are to each other. They're objectively a sub-species.

>we couldn't breed with Neanderthals that easily
we did, one of the reasons the admixture is low frequency is because our population was so much higher compared to theirs.

>It appears that male Neanderthals and female Homo sapiens couldn't have fertile children, but the exact opposite could.
this may be inaccurate, there wouldn't be much evidence of such a small Y-dna sample left over 30,000 years (you see the same effect with basal human types).

there were waves into and out of Africa for a few million years.
Don't forget the evidence of exceedingly old hominins with modern features recently found in the Mediterranean.

>they're closer to us than different chimp sub-species are to each other. They're objectively a sub-species.

That's not how taxonomy works, and source on the chimp sub-species?

>Don't forget the evidence of exceedingly old hominins with modern features recently found in the Mediterranean.

Graecopithicus was a hominid, not a hominin, as for that suspiciously humanoid footprint in Crete, wasn't it possible for animals from Africa to literally walk across certain regions in the Mediterranean? I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case, leaving Africa and going into Europe. Even so, they still wouldn't be in the genus Homo. Also, what about the difference between bonobos and common chimpanzees? They split from each other around 1 million years ago, and the common ancestor of modern humans, Neanderthals, and Denisovans split roughly 700,000 years ago.

Well, the Abos definitely can be argued to be a divergent morph at the

We know they are archaic. Descendent of the first out-of-Africa waves, with a hint of Denisovan (just like their Melanesian, Negrito and Andamanese relatives).

washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/early-humans-and-neanderthals-interbred-much-earlier-than-once-thought/2017/07/07/3f31a94e-625b-11e7-84a1-a26b75ad39fe_story.html

Thanks to the fact that Homo sapiens is now roughly 300,000 years old, this makes a lot more sense.

The Khoisan's ancestors might be in a sense. Other Africans who aren't Pygmy, Mandika, or Khoisan are much younger.

m.phys.org/news/2017-09-ancient-human-dna-sub-saharan-africa.html

we don't have Neanderthal mtDNA either, doesn't mean that some of us didn't at one point.

>While some modern human nuclear DNA has been linked to the extinct Neanderthals, no mitochondrial DNA of Neanderthal origin has been detected,[33] 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.[208] However, some researchers have argued that there is evidence of possible interbreeding between female Neanderthals and male modern humans.[172][209][210]

>suspiciously humanoid
Trachilos is obviously humanoid, and has modern features like the ball on the sole.
but it's extremely old and predates the oldest proto-modern footprints in Africa by over a million years or so, and everything else we've found that's this old is ape-like.

btw Graecopiticus was *originally* classified as a hominid, but recent evidence published in 2017 suggests they're actually hominin and share ancestry with Homo.

you're telling me that male Neanderthal and female Sapiens were the fertile combination, and produced fertile female offspring?

Yeah man we've known that for a long time.

Many scientific racists considered Neanderthals to be an inferior species/subspecies due to their "ape-like" features, such as their larger brow ridges, a jutting jaw, and a long skull. Brainlets on Stormfront considered Aboriginals to be closely related to Neanderthals as well due to vaguely similar features.

stormfront.org/forum/t285789/

just looks like a normal slav to me

We haven't found the feet of Sahelanthropus tchadensis yet user, and that is a good 1-2 million years older than the footprint found on that island. It doesn't helpt that Sahelanthropus is considered to possibly be bipedal. As for Graecopithicus, the claim that it might have been the common ancestor of hominids has been argued against too, regarding the fact that we have so little to work with and that there are apes who had hominin-like teeth as well that weren't hominins.

newscientist.com/article/2132026-our-common-ancestor-with-chimps-may-be-from-europe-not-africa/

so? Are you implying the positions are related?

Is that my garbage man

>my intention isn't to have a /pol/-tier thread
/pol/ makes this thread on Veeky Forums every day...

See these two dogs? Same species. Not even sub-species.

Are there any two human races on the planet with this much anatomical difference? (I'm sure someone will post the bird pic, but most of those birds can only breed via ring species cascade - not directly - that's why they aren't the same species, genetic difference. All human races can interbreed normally.)

As far as genetics are concerned, we're among the most genetically homogenous species on the planet. There's more genetic difference within some breeds of dogs than there are between any two humans on the planet, and there's also very often more genetic diversity within a human race than between two folks of entirely different races.

The only mammalian species more genetically homogenous than us is the Tazmanian Devil, and they are all so genetically similar they can actually pass cancers to one another.

This is all because, at some point in early modern man's history, we were reduced to a population of a mere ~10K and all isolated in the same general area, inbreeding like mad for a millenia.

Neanderthals are so genetically different from us that they couldn't even breed with us normally. Seems male Neanderthals could not breed with modern man's females, only visa versa.

Also worth noting that cro-magnons are generally considered part of modern man.

Not that there aren't differences among various breeds of man, much as their among breeds of dogs, even if they aren't as extreme. There's differences in tolerances, muscle mass, intelligence, and so on, but the curves overlap so much it isn't something society can't deal with, they overlap more than they would for near any other species in our position, and the genetic gradients make the lines so blurry that it's more often than not impossible to delineate. That last issue is only increasing - there's next to no "purebreds" left in the world.