Contemporary human species

They can still reproduce with other humans. Neanderthal and human fertile hybrids were really rare (only daughters of female humans and male neanderhals were fertile). Pygmies are slowly disappearing because they interbreed with Bantu.

I'm reading this at the moment. Recommend it to anyone, you guys.

>only daughters of female humans and male neanderhals were fertile
Really?

>only daughters of female humans and male neanderhals were fertile).
Other way around. Neanderthal DNA originates from the maternal line.

I know. You'll notice I said five human species, although I did list the Mungo Man and pygmies, who are classified as modern humans.
No, that's Homo floriensis, the "hobbit" from Indonesia.
The Red Deer Cave People look very very archaic. Australopithecus has a zygomatic arch like this, as do some Homo habilis specimens, and some Homo erectus specimens. They survived until possibly 12kya, which is very, very recent. I suppose they could be a variant of modern human... but their bones are so very different I doubt it. They're a very different type of hominin.
Asians, Amerindians, and Austromelanesians have Denisovan DNA and a greater amount of Neanderthal DNA than Caucasians. Caucasians have Neanderthal DNA. Sub-Saharan Africans don't have Neanderthal DNA, but they do have DNA from other archaic hominins that non-African humans don't have.

They found a modern-looking specimen in Morocco that dated 300kya. There are other Middle Eastern and Southern European specimens (in the Balkans) that compete with the earliest African modern humans.

Strict "Out of Africa" is totally and completely disproven. Genus Homo has been present from the Cape to Indonesia to far off Siberia and far Western Europe for 2 million years, and developed local adaptations wherever it went. More successful varieties almost never engaged in total genocide - interbreeding was common.

It's also no clear where the oldest hominid apes evolved. Yeah, there are a lot of fossils in Africa, but there are also very old hominid fossils in Southern Europe and the Caucasus.

We do know that humans didn't evolve in North or South America, Australia, or Antarctica haha.

But yes, soft-multiregional evolution is the accepted model. We didn't leave Africa 80kya. If humans evolved in Africa, they left Africa 2 million years ago.

So sons of Human males and Neanderthal females?
That would effectively mirror the ratio of Neanderthal DNA in the X-chromosome though(with the opposite).

youtube.com/watch?v=mZbmywzGAVs

here is 8 feet tall Homo erectus
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meganthropus

>Red Deer Cave
fuck why didn't I know about this
I thought I had a reasonable overview of the many strange things in human evolution
thanks!

Morphologically they're very, very different from us. And yes, they're very divergent from other Africans. So are the Khoisan and the Hadza, comparably to pygmies.

If we classified genus Homo the way we classify genus Canis... we would have a few species.

Homo australis (aborigines)
Homo pygmaeus (Pygmies)
Homo africanus (sub-Saharan Africans)
Homo caucasianus (Europeans, North Africans, Middle Easterns, South Asians)
Homo mongoliensis (East Asia and North and South America)
Homo oceanianus (Melanesians and Pacific Islanders)

When you consider how wolves, coyotes, domestic dogs, and all sorts of species are classified as separate species but are capable of interbreeding and have a clinal spectrum, but also drastically different lifestyles and habitats, it makes sense.

This is fucking nonsense. At least one neanderthal fossil has a projectile spear point embedded in its chest, the cause of death. And neanderthal shoulder joints show that they don't throw. Neanderthals and modern humans co-existed and fought, and neanderthals probably were hairy, but they were shorter than modern humans and didn't have projectile weapons. Modern humans were never hunted by neanderthals as prey.
nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus_meganthropus
The Dutch version lists it as a subspecies. And holy fuck that's insane.

...

Africans did actually have Neanderthal DNA, but anything higher than 1% was mostly found in populations who had Eurasian DNA, like the San, the vast majority of Ethiopia, the Masai, etc. As for that non-sapiens DNA, only Central Africans (specifically those with Pygmy ancestry, which can include Bantus) have that.

sad

...

>Strict "Out of Africa" is totally and completely disproven.
>But yes, soft-multiregional evolution is the accepted model.
By saying stuff like this, you make it clear that you don't really know what you're talking about. Either that, or you're making up your own definitions for those terms. OOA vs. MRE is about Homo sapiens, and the existence/spreading of pre-sapiens species to other locations really has no bearing on that. There's a reason MRE people have backed off and retreated on their points over time to the point where it's now almost non-existent in academia beyond a very watered down version, and that's because all fossil and genetic evidence so far keeps pointing to the notion that Homo sapiens first appeared as a distinct species in Africa.

I'm actually surprised it took someone this long to call you on your complete ignorance of those terms, but I guess that's to be expected on a board full of people with no actual background in this stuff besides reading Daily Mail articles and /pol/ infographics.

there are multiple OOA theories, moron
talk about popsci fag

Yeah, different models of how H. sapiens left and when. Talking about how Homo erectus spread into Asia, or how very early hominids have been found in Europe and the Middle East has nothing to do with them. The fact that you don't seem to know that, and continue to flaunt your completely ignorance while accusing me of being a "popsci fag" is pretty hilarious. I guarantee I've had way more formal education in this stuff than anyone on this board.

Seriously, just research this shit more and use some sources that are actually credible.

anthropology doesn't begin and end at the strict OOA hypothesis that american universities stick to, amerifat

THICC

OOA theories include those relating to hominids too, not just hominins or sapiens

>28kya

...

...

The fact that you think you are an evolved monkey excludes you from boasting about your intellectual prowess.

graecopithecus

>t. creationist
is this 2007?

Muh dick

No, it's 6022.

Yes.
>No evidence of Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA has been found in modern humans.[21][22][23] This would suggest that successful admixture with Neanderthals happened paternally rather than maternally on the side of Neanderthals

But at the same time:
>After years of sequencing the genomes of female Neandertals, researchers have finally got their first good look at the Y chromosome of a male Neandertal—and found that it is unlike that of any other Y in modern humans living today. Even though Neandertals and modern humans interbred several times in the past 100,000 years, the DNA on the Y chromosome from a male Neandertal who lived at El Sidrón, Spain, 49,000 years ago has not been passed onto modern humans, researchers report today in The American Journal of Human Genetics. The finding fits with earlier studies that have found that although living Asians and Europeans have inherited 1% to 3% of their DNA from their ancestors’ interbreeding with Neandertals, they are missing chunks of Neandertal DNA on their Y chromosomes. This has suggested that female modern humans and male Neandertals were not fully compatible and that male Neandertals may have had problems with sperm production.
This strongly suggests that only female offspring of male neanderthals and female humans were fertile. Which isn't surprising because Haldane's Rule applies also to humans.

>When in the F1 offspring of two different animal races one sex is absent, rare, or sterile, that sex is the heterozygous sex (heterogametic sex)

No. Neanderthal DNA came from males.

All Neanderthal DNA in humans is from females, probably because we killed the males and raped the females.

Your own source is saying that humans didn't inherit the male genes from neanderthals, just female

That's rich. I like you user.

It says that humans have neither direct paternal or maternal descent from Neanderthals.
Do you understand what that means?

So male Neanderthals boinked female cro magnids and the only fertile offspring were the females? How the fuck did this work?

It works like this in nature. Maybe male humans bred with female neanderthals but their offspring never passed their genes or died out.
Humans and neanderthals were quite different genetically. Read about Haldane's rule.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldane's_rule
It's similar with other mammals such as tigers and lions (their hybrids are called ligers).

>The fertility of hybrid big cat females is well documented across a number of different hybrids. This is in accordance with Haldane's rule: in hybrids of animals whose sex is determined by sex chromosomes, if one sex is absent, rare or sterile, it is the heterogametic sex (the one with two different sex chromosomes e.g. X and Y).

The acknowledgment of Neanderthal DNA in modern humans by the scientific community proves that a recent TOTAL origin in Africa has been rejected. It also demonstrates that at the least, a limited type of multiregional evolution of modern humans occurred.

It doesn't mean that that the majority of the modern human genome did not develop recently in East Africa, only that a strict out of Africa theory is not scientific consensus.

I find this more likely. Those of us with neanderthal variants have far more modern human ancestors, and those neanderthal variants were probably selected for because they gave a strong selectivr advantage - meaning the percent of our DNA that is neanderthal is probably vastly overblown compared to the actual proportion of our neanderthal ancestors.

There's a bigger variety of mtDNA among humans than yDNA. Much nore common to conquer women and add their DNA to your gene pool than conquering men (though it does happen).

you got it buddy.

>Humans and neanderthals were quite different genetically.
this user has no idea what he's talking about, they were closer to each other than different chimp sub-species are to one another.

The morphological species concept really needs to fucking disappear forever.

pseudoscience lovers need that concept
it will be a slow process

>wahhhh taxonomy triggers my rectal prolapse

>taxonomists refusing to accept their craft is utterly obsolete
classic
stay butthurt

I'm sure I know more about this than you.

>they were closer to each other than different chimp sub-species are to one another
How is this relevant? They still had enormous problems with producing fertile offspring.

irrelevant
>They still had enormous problems with producing fertile offspring.
I'm not sure there's as much evidence for that position as there used to be, as admixture has been recently revealed to have been widespread.

The absence of Neanderthal haplogroups in modern populations can be explained by their smaller population relative to Sapiens and the base rate of replacement.

Not an argument, sweetie.

Race is not science.

race =/= species moron

Genetics is a taxonomical tool, it doesn't obviate taxonomy.

>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>as admixture has been recently revealed to have been widespread
Source?

dude it's common knowledge that about 1/50th of Eurasian genetics is derived from or shared with Neanderthal.

genetics is more advanced than morphology though, not to mention most taxonomists even today use morphology to classify organisms
i won't lie, it feels nice seeing taxonomy progressively fucking off from universities

>it's common knowledge
>widespread
Nice and vague. Explain please, why Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA is completely absent from modern humans.

a simple explanation is that male Neanderthals mated with female Sapiens and produced daughters.

another possibility is the smaller Neanderthal population relative to Sapiens lead to the washing out over 50,000 years of their specific Y and mtDNA signatures, in the same way that the oldest Sapiens Y-DNA also has. Admixture would still remain.

I know it can be hard to accept that information can be lost over long periods of time.

>Heidelbergensis in the Balkans

...where could they possibly take refuge?

HAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA

Danny you card. This always gets me.

qt

fuck man I didn't ask to feel this

Europe is famous for it's refugium(s)

Right, but the balkans don't really have any terrain that's inaccessible enough for them to last that long. I mean shit, even the alps got SAPIENS'D eventually

The Balkan range, The Carpathians, and the mountains in the western part of the peninsula.

>five separate species
By a completely arbitary defenition of a species. sapiens, neanderthals and denisovans could all interbreed and create viable offspring which would mean they are same species by another defenition but then defenition of a species has always been arbitary. You might aswell say there are 5 different species of human now with all the different races of the world.

all that means is neanderthal was incorrectly defined, doesn't mean the definition itself is suddenly invalid.

You forgot homo hungaricus, but he's just a regular homo.

>a regular homo

giggles

>only Central Africans (specifically those with Pygmy ancestry, which can include Bantus) have that
west africans are partially descended from a separate branch of homo erectus, yes

>jewish books

How is this a problem?

academia.edu/15581930/A_New_Model_of_Human_Dispersal_ESHE_2015_Poster_

MEN HAVE A X CHROMOSOME YOU DUMBFUCK

Why do people decide to just say things as though they are facts when they have absolutely no idea what they are talking about? It’s not like we’re talking about something that’s vague or subjective.

Mitochondrial DNA is passed from the mother.

Why did you get so severely triggered? I'm not even busting balls, just talking raw science. This isn't that twink theory that the X in your XY chromosome means you can be a girl too, is it?

Neanderthal Y-DNA is also absent from humans.
So what.

Melanesians are 8% Denisovan, and some of that percentage might well have entered the Denisovan gene pool from their own admixture with a separate branch of Homo erectus

So Negritos and Aborigines might well have inherited some of their DNA from a branch of the hominid tree that you and I have been distinct from for 1.5mn years

Bear in mind the Homo-Chimp MRCA lived only 6mn years ago

>we are all the same bigot

The reason that different groups of humans are not called different species is because of how genetically similar we all are. Despite morphology, the genetic distance between humans is incredibly small when compared to most other animals. If we were to divide ourselves up into 6 or more species we'd have to do even more for hundreds of other creatures on this earth.

...

...

>Each bar corresponds to an individual, the colour code designates the genetically defined cluster of individuals, and the height is proportional to age (the background grid shows a projection of longitude against age). To help in visualization, we add jitter for sites with multiple individuals from nearby locations. Four individuals from Siberia are plotted at the far eastern edge of the map. ka, thousand years ago.

No, but it radically changed it in such a massive way, that any inferences used with prior methodology should be called into question. Classic taxonomy tells you that this thing is a fish. Genetics tells you that this thing is more closely related to every human being on earth than it is to a salmon.

cladisticsfag

>denying genetic facts because they hurt your brain too much

They just found a modern human skull part in Israel showing that humans were leaving Africa 200K years earlier than thought.

actually I totally agree with you, I just wanted to call you a faggot

faggot

...