Were the red deer cave people modern humans or some archaic variety that...

Spamalot
Spamalot

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

Attached: IMG-5895.png (349 KB, 1200x666)

All 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

ZeroReborn
ZeroReborn

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?

AwesomeTucker
AwesomeTucker

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.

PurpleCharger
PurpleCharger

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.

Illusionz
Illusionz

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.

girlDog
girlDog

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.

Firespawn
Firespawn

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.

WebTool
WebTool

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.

Dreamworx
Dreamworx

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.

Fried_Sushi
Fried_Sushi

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

askme
askme

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.

hairygrape
hairygrape

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 /mlp/ or something.

WebTool
WebTool

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.

Stark_Naked
Stark_Naked

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.

Sir_Gallonhead
Sir_Gallonhead

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.

Soft_member
Soft_member

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.

w8t4u
w8t4u

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

BlogWobbles
BlogWobbles

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

FastChef
FastChef

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).

Nojokur
Nojokur

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

Evil_kitten
Evil_kitten

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.

Firespawn
Firespawn

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.

TurtleCat
TurtleCat

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>?

PurpleCharger
PurpleCharger

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

Harmless_Venom
Harmless_Venom

Aren't insular dwarves usually considered subspecies anyway?

cum2soon
cum2soon

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.

Techpill
Techpill

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.

SniperWish
SniperWish

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

Ignore this faggot:

BinaryMan
BinaryMan

abloo bloo bloo biology offends me
Faggot.

New_Cliche
New_Cliche

Biology
Taxonomy*, underage amerilard

Spamalot
Spamalot

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.

farquit
farquit

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

Techpill
Techpill

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.

Methnerd
Methnerd

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:
/pol/

PackManBrainlure
PackManBrainlure

feels over reals

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

TurtleCat
TurtleCat

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.

BlogWobbles
BlogWobbles

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.

FastChef
FastChef

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

Boy_vs_Girl
Boy_vs_Girl

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.

takes2long
takes2long

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?

PackManBrainlure
PackManBrainlure

Muh slippery slope fallacy
kys

Skullbone
Skullbone

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?

Flameblow
Flameblow

It's a reducto ad absurdum you fucking moron.

New_Cliche
New_Cliche

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.

Spamalot
Spamalot

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

FastChef
FastChef

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.

Booteefool
Booteefool

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

takes2long
takes2long

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.

Sir_Gallonhead
Sir_Gallonhead

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.

farquit
farquit

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

Skullbone
Skullbone

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.

BlogWobbles
BlogWobbles

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.

AwesomeTucker
AwesomeTucker

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

New_Cliche
New_Cliche

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

Dreamworx
Dreamworx

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.

Nojokur
Nojokur

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

farquit
farquit

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..

Inmate
Inmate

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 (11 KB, 800x800)

Emberburn
Emberburn

so they are objectively "not human."

They are considered "archaic humans".

LuckyDusty
LuckyDusty

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

Homo Neanderthalensis and Homo Denisova weren't Homo Sapiens.

Playboyize
Playboyize

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

ZeroReborn
ZeroReborn

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

Stark_Naked
Stark_Naked

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 (81 KB, 675x498)

Booteefool
Booteefool

Neanderthals and modern humans share a common ancestor

Yes.

Erectus

No. It was Homo heidelbergensis.

farquit
farquit

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

I suggest you all read this.

viagrandad
viagrandad

Even closer.

idontknow
idontknow

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

SniperGod
SniperGod

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

CouchChiller
CouchChiller

What study is this image from?

DeathDog
DeathDog

Who made that PCA? What is it based on?

Nude_Bikergirl
Nude_Bikergirl

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

Garbage Can Lid
Garbage Can Lid

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.

King_Martha
King_Martha

Here

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

kizzmybutt
kizzmybutt

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.

Sharpcharm
Sharpcharm

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

Emberburn
Emberburn

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.

TurtleCat
TurtleCat

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

RumChicken
RumChicken

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.

CouchChiller
CouchChiller

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

AwesomeTucker
AwesomeTucker

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.

BunnyJinx
BunnyJinx

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

Do you have anything better

iluvmen
iluvmen

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.

Evilember
Evilember

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 (132 KB, 1057x856)

Flameblow
Flameblow

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 (22 KB, 700x420)

BlogWobbles
BlogWobbles

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.

CouchChiller
CouchChiller

Attached: taforalt-pcawupcn-iberomaurusian-PCA.png (372 KB, 1169x1569)

AwesomeTucker
AwesomeTucker

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

GoogleCat
GoogleCat

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

Stupidasole
Stupidasole

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.

Spazyfool
Spazyfool

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

Raving_Cute
Raving_Cute

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

Prove it with proper PCA or other genetic software.

Booteefool
Booteefool

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

MPmaster
MPmaster

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

farquit
farquit

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

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

SomethingNew
SomethingNew

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.

5mileys
5mileys

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

massdebater
massdebater

PCA is not a "genetic software

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

Deadlyinx
Deadlyinx

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

Emberfire
Emberfire

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.

CodeBuns
CodeBuns

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.

Raving_Cute
Raving_Cute

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

Why unlikely? Australoids are tropically adapter and Tianyuan was also partially australoid-like so it could have been archaic paleolithic Chinese lineage, that survive very long, while most of other chinks evolved more.

cum2soon
cum2soon

No. Obviously they're all dead so we have no idea how they'd be, but assuming they could have developed in a similar fashion to us, I'd have to imagine the issue would be like multiple fantasy races in a single fantasy kingdom. Just instead of elves and dwarves and whatnot, it'd be Neanderthalensis and Floriensis.
It would actually be kinda neat to see how modern times would be if it worked out that way.

likme
likme

I meant that the conditions make DNA preservation unlikely.

Deadlyinx
Deadlyinx

We would have genocided the shit out of them, that's how it would have worked out.

Skullbone
Skullbone

I mean, we kinda did to the neanderthals by expanding rapidly. Our gain, their loss, this thread.

Stupidasole
Stupidasole

Consider this: since neanderthals, denisovans and humans share a common ancestor with each other that had a comlon ancestor with chimps long ago, their differences are on top of the shared difference to chimps.

Back to the PCA. You can see that chimps, denisovans and neanderthals are at fixed distances to each other, and the only variable are the human populations that are pulled toward their respective ancestry, with no-one pulling toward chimps as all have archaic admixture to some degree. Its about us, not them. You have to know what is visualized. All PCAs are not the same .

I'm sure even you cant be so dense to suggest chimps, denisovans and neanderthals were equidistant from each other.

eGremlin
eGremlin

I meant that the conditions make DNA preservation unlikely.

With advancing sequencing methods. mesolithic samples should be doable, even with damaged DNA.

farquit
farquit

Denisovans also had admixture from some chimp-like hominin. Also compare their drift paths to chimp. Interestingly Treemix suggest that Kostenki14 was a sister branch to Ust'-Ishim but with Proto-WHG admixture so I guess cro-magnon might have been mixed since beginning and pWHG isolated outside Europe during paleolithic.

You can see that chimps, denisovans and neanderthals

On that PCA, oceanians are clearly closer to denisovans than east asians to neanderthals and africans are more chimp shifted(they probably had unknown archaic admixture) than eurasians are Nea/Deni shifted.
It's not fixed.

I'm sure even you cant be so dense to suggest chimps, denisovans and neanderthals were equidistant from each other.

Certainly not.

happy_sad
happy_sad

am I the only one who wants to fuck the cheekbones

haveahappyday
haveahappyday

Attached: Kostenki14-Ust'-Ishim-Loschbour-Neanderthal-Denisovan-treemix-important.png (85 KB, 1236x700)

SniperWish
SniperWish

Post Chimp-Homo bifurcation Chimp-like admixture(even more basal than modern chimps) in Denisovans. It's possible Denisovans were archaic enough that they could still breed with some apes?

Harmless_Venom
Harmless_Venom

Khoisans seem to be almost divergent enough to be akin to a subspecies. As they seem have split directly some basal early modern humans.

ZeroReborn
ZeroReborn

bump

BunnyJinx
BunnyJinx

Attached: Villabruna-Kotias-MA1-Vestonice16-treemix.png (66 KB, 1235x536)

Fuzzy_Logic
Fuzzy_Logic

Attached: Kotias-&-Yamnaya-TreeMix.png (24 KB, 1200x771)

New_Cliche
New_Cliche

Attached: 6yz0y0-treemix-basal.jpg (53 KB, 1172x761)

Evilember
Evilember

Attached: Kostenki14-tree.png (174 KB, 930x983)

TurtleCat
TurtleCat

Attached: East-Asia-tree.jpg (85 KB, 917x1280)

BinaryMan
BinaryMan

Attached: 5rlJsyc-Kostenki14-qpgraph.png (152 KB, 800x901)

New_Cliche
New_Cliche

On that PCA, oceanians are clearly closer to denisovans than east asians to neanderthals and africans are more chimp shifted(they probably had unknown archaic admixture) than eurasians are Nea/Deni shifted.
It's not fixed.

How are you this bad at reading? The human population arent fixed because they pull in those directions, the archaics and chimp are. You can see that they form a triangle with equal sides. How is something this simple so hard for you to understand?

Crazy_Nice
Crazy_Nice

What study is this from? 0 hits on google image search.

Soft_member
Soft_member

What study is this from?

This amateur work.

Attached: 6zvwcx-Villabruna-Kostenki14-El-Miron-GoyetQ116-1-Vetonice16-qpgraph.png (85 KB, 584x932)

girlDog
girlDog

Attached: Trees-Kostenki.png (246 KB, 1405x944)

takes2long
takes2long

Thought so, since there is no evidence of Denisovans breeding with chimps.

w8t4u
w8t4u

Attached: Tinayuan-MA1-Kostenki-Papuan-ancestral-tree.png (111 KB, 1000x1232)

idontknow
idontknow

No, its not.

kizzmybutt
kizzmybutt

Maybe not literal chimps but they have pretty much confirmed unknown ultra-archaic hominin(or hominid in this case?) admixture.
I guess they may have beenv archaic enough to be able breed with some extinct apes.

Attached: npigew-Kostenki-qpgraph.png (200 KB, 779x852)

Sharpcharm
Sharpcharm

Citation needed, from the PCA debacle its pretty clear that you cant be trusted with graphs.

eGremlin
eGremlin

You still seem pretty confuced about the evolution of hominin. Chimps arent like Denosovan and Neanderthal, at all. They are many, many steps down the tree. Archaic admixture in Denisovans, if there is admixture, would come from something like h. Erectus, nothing even close to the chimp genus.

GoogleCat
GoogleCat

Treemix shows it as almost as basal as chimps.

Lean how to use google

Attached: 14avas9-qpgraph-Iran-N-Kostenki-WHG-important.png (77 KB, 632x864)

MPmaster
MPmaster

You obviously just dont understand what is depicted, or the amateur who made them doesnt.

Saying "just googol it dude" is the same as saying "none of the sites were reliable enough to cite".

w8t4u
w8t4u

You yourself don't understand shit or is blind

They had admixture from something phylogenetically close to chimpanzees and on the same branch as them.Of course this program may be wrong but nevertheless it was sometjing extremely basal. More than Homo Erectus would be.

Skullbone
Skullbone

Just cite your source, you obviously did bot know how to read PCA either, I'm not going to take your word on an unsourced treemix.

StonedTime
StonedTime

Fuck yoursel, Treemix has no source and regarding archaic admixture in Denisovans you can look for it yourself, Nervertheless it's unknown what it is exactly

Need_TLC
Need_TLC

I did, and did not find anything. Because its bullshit, probably based on some mistake the obvious amateur did, being peddled by someone completely ignorant on the subject as I have shown here. You just found thag graph somewhere like you did the PCA, and without understanding it just looked at it and made your idiotic assumptions like denisovan, chimp and neanderthal could be equidistant from each other. That is what you were saying originally about the PCA.

Gigastrength
Gigastrength

Actually latest research puts Europeans as homo sapiens sapiens sapiens, while the rest of the world are homo sapiens sapiens.

Flameblow
Flameblow

If Australian Aboriginals had been wiped out 10,000 years ago I think they would be classed with Floriensis, Neanderthals, and Denisovans.

So yes, they would be considered "one race the human race."

Illusionz
Illusionz

That looks like a happy merchant holding a happy merchant holding a happy merchant

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Confirm your age

This website may contain content of an adult nature. If you are under the age of 18, if such content offends you or if it is illegal to view such content in your community, please EXIT.

Enter Exit

About Privacy

We use cookies to personalize content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyze our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our advertising and analytics partners.

Accept Exit