Were the red deer cave people modern humans or some archaic variety that survived till 10,000 years ago?

Were the red deer cave people modern humans or some archaic variety that survived till 10,000 years ago?

Attached: IMG_5895.png (1200x666, 349K)

Other urls found in this thread:

britannica.com/topic/Neanderthal
livinganthropologically.com/biological-anthropology/denisovans-neandertals-human-races/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee–human_last_common_ancestor
dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/03/neandertaldenisovan-admixture-using-pca.html

i don't want full blown /pol/faggotry, but would Homo Neanderthalensis, Denisovan, Floriensis, etc. be "one race, the human race :^)" if they were alive today?

Well all of those you listed are different species than Humans (Homo sapiens), so they are objectively "not human." This is much different from say, modern races which are all Homo sapiens.

They haven't been classified yet so no-one really knows.

No, Homo Neanderthalensis and Floriensis are designated different species. I still don't think it would be OK to kill them or put them in concentration camps based on that fact though. They were sentient beings.

some are considered a subspecies, and don't they qualify as such if you can interbeed with them and have fertile offspring?
there is proof of half-neanderthals and half-denisovans.

The definition of species is arbitrary. Some species can interbreed, but they're morphologically different enough, they be considered another species. Other than minor things like skin colour, eye coulour and so on, humans basically all follow the same body and brain plan. You would never look at a neanderthal with white skin and conclude it was a european human, they had different shoulders, chest cavities, they aged more rapidly becoming mature at the age of 12, and were built completely differently, to the point we had hunting strategies they didn't.

All Homo Sapiens are technically 'human'; now, if by 'human' you mean Homo Sapiens Sapiens, that's a different story altogether. Think of cat breeds, even though their morphology and behaviour may vary (quite a lot) they still can produce (fertile) offspring with one another, so they are technically only one species.

Not really.

There isn't that much evidence that they could speak in a way that humans could understand, and they're much more morphologically distinct from modern humans than any living ethnicity.

That's not really his question imo.
Yes, people would claim we are all one race if those subraces still existed. They're more divergent from modern humans than niggers are, but they were pale skinned so they may have seemed closer than they are, and in any event this "one race, human race" nonsense is politically motivated, it doesn't care about the science.

So what of the aboriginals and pygmy?
Differences between an Eskimo and Pygmy are pretty striking.

I don't know what you want me to say. Species are inherently arbitrary, the only thing that defines is what the scientific community agrees. Evolution isn't discrete, its continuous. And we all know what your question is really about, you're trying to guide the conservation into racism, to which I say "fuck off to /pol/". Scientists don't consider races subspecies, so there you go. And even if they were, what the fuck would it change? They're still the same people.

the thread is literally about what constitutes a modern human, if you're too much of a shitlib faggot to post in such a thread without being triggered by MUH POL then you should just fuck off back to or something.

Crucify me for my supposed intentions, IDGAF.
I like the conversation, because when it is done in good faith, it can be constructive.

It being arbitrary I suppose only makes the most sense. But when I see a hominid that is morphologically different than myself, and one is called the same as me and the other a separate subspecies, I'm curious on the criteria that we use to differentiate.
The definition of a subspecies seems to describe members of the same species that are geographical separated, morphologically different, and can reproduce but typically don't.

No, its about ancient humans and whether they fit into modern human category. You and the other guy have directed it towards whether "niggers" as one of you called them and other modern *races* are humans or sub-species or whatever. Oh yeah, and I'm the fucking "triggered" one, fuck off mate. Just because you have the right to say something doesn't mean you should, and getting offended at someone else's protest to your actions is just being a fucking crybaby.

>But when I see a hominid that is morphologically different than myself, and one is called the same as me and the other a separate subspecies, I'm curious on the criteria that we use to differentiate.

The reason races aren't classed as sub-species is because the scientific community doesn't really have a use for it. I mean what does "black" really mean? The continent of Africa comprises 52 countries, 3000 languages and just as many distinct cultures, and they're very genetically diverse. And then if you're going to apply it too anyone with dark skin as Ameicans often do, it becomes even more meaningless. Race isn't even a biological distinction anymore, its self-reported. Also, morphologically, you are different to other races, but not by much.

We all have basically the same body p[lan, swinging shoulders for hunting, excellent endurance running skills, sweat and are behaviorally modern. Compared to all that, skin colour (which isn't even a true difference, just a difference in melanin) and eye colour (not even a difference in melanin, just how its arranged) isn't very important.

Red Deer People have only a little more genetic distance than niggers, why are they another species (not even a subspecies, an entire new species) while niggers aren't? And if nigger offends you, then just imagine I am a nigger and I'm asking about cumskin white devils instead.

IMO that just speaks to "black" being a retarded term and if we wanted to describe races we need to be much more nuanced.
Take the pygmies and the khoisan for example. It's laughable that they're both considered the same race ("black"). I think the should speak to the idea that we need a better description, not that no differences exist.

If we were to be fair, pygmies and aboriginals are morphologically different enough to be considered subspecies.

They'd be human. Human is derived from homnids, meaning any of the genus homo.

>Red Deer People have only a little more genetic distance than niggers

Alright, by how much? Where did you get that information from?

>And if nigger offends you, then just imagine I am a nigger and I'm asking about cumskin white devils instead.

Oh fuck off you obnoxious prick. Getting offended is perfectly fine when the other person is being a cunt. Getting offended at other people getting offended is just being a fucking child.

They're not. One group is smaller than the other, that's not really a big difference. Pygmys appear in a lot of species. And the Congo Pygmys aren't the only ones in the world, they're just the most famous. Pygmys appear in South America and South-East Asia as well. If you want to argue they're a sub-species, go ahead. But the term is bit useless for pygmys because not all of them are pygmys, some of them are born normal height (pygmoids).

The reason neanderthals and denisova are considered different species is because they follow haldane's rule.
Basically we have no paternal dna from either denisova or neanderthals so that makes it very likely that male hybrids were infertile while female hybrids weren't

>Basically we have no paternal dna from either denisova or neanderthals
This is nonsense tho, nearly all the neanderthal DNA we have came from male neanderthals breeding with human women. Neanderthals are only considered another species because of the historical fact that the two groups did not do much mixing for the great majority of their existence, had they lived closer to modern humans or persisted long alongside us, we would see them as a subspecies at most, and probably just call them "archaic moderns" or something.

>This is nonsense tho, nearly all the neanderthal DNA we have came from male neanderthals breeding with human women

That's what he meant. There's no paternal DNA because male human - female neanderthal offspring either didn't survive or were infertile.

Paternal means "from the father" tho, if the males are the ones who contributed their genes to our genepool then surely we have paternal dna>?

Oh yeah, you're right, there's nuclear DNA but no MDNA.

Aren't insular dwarves usually considered subspecies anyway?

Yeah. But I guess the reason they're not considered sub-species is for the reasons I mentioned and the fact they already suffer enslavement and genocide without dehumanizing them further.

Eh no disrespect intended to the pygmies or anything, but fuck them. If they're a subspecies they should be classed as one, it's only offensive if nature offends you. The facts are the facts.

I know, maybe later after old conflicts have been forgotten.

Ignore this faggot:

>abloo bloo bloo biology offends me
Faggot.

>Biology
Taxonomy*, underage amerilard

Yes because its teh system of classification that hurts your butt, not the biological fact that there are humans who belong to another subspecies. Fuck off, double faggot.

Did i understand it right if they are scientifically a subspecie, but they are not classified as such because of discrimination?

Sub-species aren't natural anymore than a meter is though, they're just definitions humans use for the sake of ease. For example, we only just categorized giraffes as having 5 different sub-species, before that no fucker could tell the difference between them. That's just for our sake so we know which giraffe population we're referring to. If you want to argue they're a sub-species, whatever, go take it up with The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Another one of the problems with applying sub-species to humans is that we can label ourselves, so its basically redundant. Defining pygmies as a sub-species wouldn't really change anything other than giving the Congolese more reason to abuse them.

That's not the reason. I just said I suspect its one of them. Sub-species are arbitrarily defined by humans, so if scientists can't find a good reason to call them that, they won't.

The system of classification is based on morphology mainly not genetic /or any other biological) differences per se. And i indeed know there should be subspecies of the 'modern' man; though unlike you i don't use this knowledge to be an edgy faggot. Now, fuck off:

>feels over reals

Attached: 1522086156720.jpg (229x343, 24K)

>Defining pygmies as a sub-species wouldn't really change anything other than giving the Congolese more reason to abuse them.
So we should tell short people they are all six feet tall, since meters are just arbitrary and it hurts their feelings to be considered small? What nonsense are you babbling. I'm well aware that species is a somewhat fuzzy concept but its not that not nebulous, and by any of the usual criteria pygmies are a subspecies.

Your stupid cult of egalitarianism means that any recognition of difference MUST be done with harmful intent.
You are the only one to bring ideas of hate and malice into this. Reflect on your posts.

It has a harmful intent as you would happily give people another reason to abuse others. It is called pragmatism, you imbecile.

People can use any technology to abuse others, should we ban everything and confine everyone to a cell so that no-one abuses anyone else? The Congolese are subhuman savages, they will kill pygmies no matter what, that's a retarded basis for ignoring science in this one case and it sets a terrible precedent.

That doesn't really apply when the thing is literally defined by feels in the first place. There's no "reals" to feel, if you catch my drift.

What the fuck are you even on about. No-one denies pygmies are short. In fact, the word "pygmy" means a group of humans who are consistently under 1.5m tall. Its built into the word.

>and by any of the usual criteria pygmies are a subspecies.

Well its not usual criteria is it? They're humans, they can self-define. When we call a giraffe or a whale a sub-species, they can't fucking tell us what they define themselves as can they? So we make up the boundaries for them. f they could and an Orca turned around and said "actually, we're just the California Orcas, not a different sub-species", and you going to fucking tell them they're wrong about their own species and foist your arbitrary measurement on them?

>Muh slippery slope fallacy
kys

It's called an analogy dumb-dumb, you want to reclassify pygmies because of the supposed consequences to them, why stop there? Why not classify short people as tall, afterall there are countess positive outcomes associated with being tall and it would make them feel so much better. It's just pragmatic, really.

>They're humans, they can self-define
They DO self define, you think they call themselves "pygmies"? We're talking about the scientific classification. Should I have the right to claim to be an attack helicopter? I'm a human, I have the right to self definition, can I deny being a homo sapiens and have you go along with it, or would that be idiotic?

It's a reducto ad absurdum you fucking moron.

Meter = arbitrary axiom humanity created to make communication easier etc. Biological realities on the other hand are present whether we observe/categorize them or not.

Not that faggot but distances likewise exist whether or not we measure them. Meters are a fair analogy for species imo.

No, I don't see the point because they can tell us how they see themselves in relation. Its not the same analogy because no-one is denying their physical characteristics, no-one is saying they're not short or different, we're just saying let them label themselves. We already have name for them, pygmys, which tells you everything you need to know about them.

>Why not classify short people as tall

That's not an accurate analogy. No-one is saying they're not short and we have names pygmys who aren't (pymoids).

>We're talking about the scientific classification. Should I have the right to claim to be an attack helicopter?

But you're missing the point. Pygmy is a description of them, that's not who they are. They have their own ethnic terms. No-one is saying they aren't pygmies or that they're short, its just calling them a sub-species has no real benefit to use and would probably make things even more complicated because there's several groups of pygmies throughout the world and we'd have to classify them all as sub-species when they already have their own fucking names. We'd have to make two new categories for negritos and congo pygmies and then more. There's just no point.

Biological reality is that if you split it down far enough, we're all our own sub-species. Its just an arbitrary marker used for convenience.

If you can fuck it and make fertile offspring it's the same species

Are you baiting? A meter is a specific distance we decided on AKA an axiom or internal truth. Biological differences are scientifically measureable AKA true regardless of where or who you are. A meter is a certain distance only because it is agreed upon. Hence the idea that biological realities and meters are equally arbitrary is completely ludicrous. I assume he's trying to argue that the categorization itself can be damaging (which is true) but he's failing spectacularly.

>That's not an accurate analogy. No-one is saying they're not short and we have names pygmys who aren't (pymoids).
It's an analogy you moron, I'm not specifically talking about height. Pygmies are a subspecies, but we can't call them that because "they are humans with the right to self determination"? This doesn't even make sense on the face of it, and the precedent it sets is catastrophic. What happens when some group decides they don't want to be associated with outsiders, and demands we consider them to be their own species? Apparently according to you, we just have to go along with them and change the science books to match the political expediency.

You are a fucking retard, holy shit. I'm done with you, dumbfuck.

Okay so lets restart this thread without the garbage above.

Personally I think that as we only know about the Denisovans through a fingertip, I dont see any reason why these people could not be Denisovan or someone related to them.

It's already come to light that Asians had atleast two separate mating events with Denisovans, one for East Asians and Oceanians, and one strictly East Asian, so this would also fit the timeline.

Right, what you're saying is that I'm denying the essence of them. They're pygmys, most of them are under 1.5m and what I'd call short, that's fine. No-one is saying that. I'm not saying the scientists haven't called them a sub-species because it could negatively impact them, or that its because they have right to determination. I don't know why, you'd have to ask them, I'm *speculating* as to why because I think it would be redundant for those reasons.

>What happens when some group decides they don't want to be associated with outsiders

What of it? The ability of groups to move around and join other groups doesn't impact this conversation. If a pygmy moves to Britain and gets citizenship, he's still a pygmy. He might not classify himself as a negrito anymore and instead as British-negrito or whatever, that's fine. Its doesn't change reality. Maybe if he had mixed-race children, they'd cease to be pygmys, but would carry on calling themselves negritos. Do you see how none of this is to do with biology. When sub-species are created, they're not always argued on the basis of biology, sometimes its just because two populations don't interact. Sometimes it is biology. The only justification for a sub-species is that its useful for us.

>we just have to go along with them and change the science books to match the political expediency.

No. First, science books always change for a start. Second, pygmies have never been classed as a sub-species, and third, this isn't about actual biological fact, its about human classification. You might as well argue that Pluto being demoted from a planet was political expediency. Yeah it was, its not changed it though, its still the same fucking rock and pluto means the same thing it always has.

They are small compared to actual subspecies that Homo erectus had over the last 2 million years.

Knowing Amerindians have more civilization potential than europeans. Let there be a scale of superiority between ethnic groups. Amerindians would be above europeans.

Wrong. Hominids are great apes. What you are referring to is hominin, and even that wouldn't be 100% accurate, as chimps are hominins too.

Awful shitposting honestly. If anything that's an insult to shitposters actually.

Extinct archaic species or earlier australoids or australoids with much higher denisovan/neanderthal admixture than modern ones. These skulls aren't old so shouldn't be that hard to sequence them..

>be "one race, the human race :^)" if they were alive today?

No, they were really separate species and almost as divergent from homo sapiens as chimps.

Attached: 1_2 Blue Neanderthal Green Denisovan Red Chimp Black Humans PCA.png (800x800, 11K)

>so they are objectively "not human."

They are considered "archaic humans".

>All Homo Sapiens are technically 'human'; now, if by 'human' you mean Homo Sapiens Sapiens,

Homo Neanderthalensis and Homo Denisova weren't Homo Sapiens.

Theyre from a cave in one of the wetter and hotter parts of China, so its very unlikely. Altough they are trying.

Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis...
britannica.com/topic/Neanderthal

You must be joking, Neanderthals and modern humans share an ancestor, Erectus.

You cant even properly tell them apart at the resolution it takes to show divergence with chimps.

Attached: 675px-Hominini_lineage.svg.png (675x498, 81K)

>Neanderthals and modern humans share a common ancestor

Yes.

>Erectus

No. It was Homo heidelbergensis.

livinganthropologically.com/biological-anthropology/denisovans-neandertals-human-races/

I suggest you all read this.

Even closer.

They share both, being that heidelbergensis is the direct descendant of erectus.

And? On PCA they are about as divergent from humans as chimps are.

What study is this image from?

Who made that PCA? What is it based on?

Not a study it's a graph with years from divergence. If you seriously think chimpanzees that diverged from the human lineage around 10 million years ago would be around as close to modern humans as neanderthals from the same fucking species you retard.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee–human_last_common_ancestor

>Who made that PCA? What is it based on?
A guy in some blog but that's the only PCA with humans and archaics I was able to find.

Here

dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/03/neandertaldenisovan-admixture-using-pca.html

Those PCAs are not scaled for ascertaining relatedness, they are only made to look for shared drift in any direction. You're seriously stupid if you think they represent the distance from modern humans to fucking chimpanzees on a scale you could use for modern populations. Dios mio save me from these ignorant baboons.

>You cant even properly tell them apart at the resolution it takes to show divergence with chimps.

Denisovans and neanderhals were partially admixed with each other but still highly divergent

>Those PCAs are not scaled for ascertaining relatedness, they are only made to look for shared drift in any direction. You're seriously stupid if you think they represent the distance from modern humans to fucking chimpanzees on a scale you could use for modern populations. Dios mio save me from these ignorant baboons.

It's not accurate but the distance still gives an idea.

All modern populations are close with Africans being closest to chimps so distances in general makes sense.

NO IT DOES NOT. It's not about their overall distance, its to show if humans deviate to either direction. Oh my god its when people think they can just look at a graph with pretty colors and thats it.

Do you have any other PCA with modern humans and neaderthals/denisovans?

You really think that Neanderthals, who split from humans around 400,000 years ago, would be around as close to us as chimpanzees that broke of around 10 MILLION years ago? Holy fucking shit Veeky Forums is full of retards.

It's about distance as humans population dots in that pca overlap properly,

Do you have anything better

>You really think that Neanderthals, who split from humans around 400,000 years ago, would be around as close to us as chimpanzees that broke of around 10 MILLION years ago? Holy fucking shit Veeky Forums is full of retards.

As I said it's not accurate but gives you an idea. In all likehood chimps are further away but in opposite direction. Archaic humans were closer to our most recent common ancestors with chimps, whereas chimps are further away than modern humans.

Anyway pipulations evolve at different rates (bottlenecks and inbreeding in small populations make divergence much faster) so it is possible species that diverged earlier is about divergent as one that did later but is more drifted.

Pygmies aren't subspecies and they are less basal than unadmixed Bushmen.

In ADMIXTURE Pygmies look like west Africans with Khoisan admixture probably because than diverged later than san but earlier than Bantu proper so still share some alleles with bushmen.

Attached: Eh90ZxT Taforalt Iberomaurusian PCA .jpg (1057x856, 132K)

No, because theres literally no use for one. Simple branching graphs illustrate the difference well enough.

The PCA was rooted with San, and the chimp and neanderthal are only at relative directions, but not in scale.

Attached: 1875.jpg (700x420, 22K)

No it does not give you a fucking idea. Chimps are over 10x further from humans as neanderthals you FUCKING IDIOT. Does that show them as 10x as different? Fuck no.

Attached: taforalt_pcawupcn iberomaurusian PCA.png (1169x1569, 372K)

Branching graphs don't illustrate shit unless it's a proper phylogenetic software but even then PCAs are good for visualization

Fair enough mate. I didn't know why they weren't, I just speculating as to why they weren't.

But that PCA is not made to visualize the distance you fucking idiot. Only if some modern populations are pulled in any of the directions.

This one is bad as it looks as if humans are more basal than neanderthals. What study is it from?

>Chimps are over 10x further from humans as neanderthals you FUCKING IDIOT

Prove it with proper PCA or other genetic software.

Are you seriously questioning whether chimpanzees or neanderthals are closer to humans? What the fuck is wrong with you?

You prove it since it goes against everything we know about hominin speciation.

Check this treemix it illustrates African populations well with extinct Mota being most Eurasian-like African subrace/population

Attached: Natufian Mota treemix5.png (1118x558, 61K)

PCA is not a "genetic software". You obviously dont know jack shit, just see some anthrographs on Veeky Forums and think you do. Just stop.

I want to know how exactly divergent they are but no study really shown it.

>PCA is not a "genetic software

But it's widely used for this purpose, Use something better to prove your point or shut up.

Actually Patterson invented it for genetic clustering. If I remember it right.

It's not even a software, it's a statistical procedure. Your ignorance is unbearable. You obvioisly dont know anything about PCAs if you think its some software.

>It's not even a software, it's a statistical procedure

You are notpicking faggot and it's a software because there are many programs and packages with PCA functionality available.