Neanderthals were more evolved than homo erectus because they migrated from africa...

just let the thread die
OP is another brainlet trying to use his popsci knowledge of biology to justify his racist bias

DICKS OUT

practical desert vs tropical jungle
hmmmmmmmm

>It barely did a thing to tropical areas of the planet retard

28 minutes later

>practical desert vs tropical jungle
>TROPICAL jungle

cherry on top
>he thinks the entire africa is a big desert

Jesus christ this post is embarassing

I see the underlying point you're making and agree with it, but just to be pedantic:

Humans and snails share a common ancestor, probably some type of weird slug-like thing. Using basically any metric you want to use to compare genomes, human dna is far more different from slugman's dna, than a snails' dna is from slugman's dna.

So we are more evolved than snails in the sense that our genome has a higher deviation from our shared ancestor.

>we are more evolved than snails in the sense that our genome has a higher deviation from our shared ancestor.

Where are you getting that information from user? The most recent published articles concerning gastropods (snails/slugs) literally state they are understudied in genome research.

academic.oup.com/gbe/article/9/3/585/2997437

>Gastropods are one of the broadest distributed eukaryotic taxa, being present across ecosystems worldwide. They occupy a maximally diverse set of habitats ranging from the deep sea to the highest mountains and from deserts to the Arctic, and have evolved to a range of specific adaptions (Romero et al. 2015, 2016). However, as for molluscs in general, whose species richness is second only to the arthropods (Dunn and Ryan 2015), gastropods are highly underrepresented among publicly available genomes (fig. 1). To date, only eleven mollusc genome sequences—of which six are from gastropods—exist with varying qualities concerning contiguity and completeness (table 1). Any additional genome sequence has therefore the potential to substantially increase the knowledge about molluscs in particular and animal genomics in general.

Hell we just discovered a new form of predation for them literally today.

m.phys.org/news/2017-11-marine-scientists-kleptopredationa-prey.html

Why do you brainlets keep spouting bullshit about topics you either don't know or care enough to know?

>Neanderthals were more evolved than homo erectus

Those are already Eurasian mongoloids fucktard, the common ancestor of mongoloids(Asians') already had empathy and impulse regulation thats why amazon amerindians act more intelligent and civilized than african blacks even the wild ones in the jungles.

I think you misunderstood me - my point was about what we can infer from probably phylogenetic distance, and not specifically about the relations between mollusks and humans.

Besides, do you really want to argue that the p distance, or whatever else you want, is lower/better between humans and our nearest mollusk ancestor than the distance between that ancestor and a snail? You don't need to actually have the genomes to tell that statement is ridiculous.

If you want, take an animal that hasn't changed in hundreds of millions of years, like Coelacanth. We've sequenced DNA for it, humans, and lungfish (our ancestor and phylogenetic cousin of Coelacanth), The lungfish isn't even a common ancestor of humans and coelacanth, you'd have to go further up the tree. And yet it's still obvious that we've evolved more from lungfish than coelacanth did from its common ancestor with lungfish.

NEANDERTHALS did not evolve into "Caucasian homo sapiens", they became extinct.

>more evolved
All organisms have evolved over the same period of time. None of them are more evolved than any others.

If anything, the extant ones are more evolved.

You don't seem to understand genetics. Modern organisms do not genetically resemble their ancient ancestors. Let's take alligators for example. If you look at the genomes from ones millions of years ago compared to today they would be drastically different.

More different than modern alligators compared to separate modern species, who had a shared ancestor with modern alligators earlier than this ancient alligator? That underwent the same forces of genetic drift, in addition to natural selection? Jesus christ.

I don't understand how you can even begin to make the argument you're making, if you just know so much about this topic. How do you think fields like comparative genomics even exist, under the assumption that all gene pool mutations happen at a similar rate in all species? How would we be able to build phylogenetic trees if we couldn't find any meaningful distance metric between species across time? Like holy fuck man. How are you so thick?

Your problem, OP, (and by "problem," I mean, "the reason why you are stupid") is that you use your ability to reason to seek justifications for ideologies you already hold. In other words, your level of bias is poisonous (to you), and you need an extreme level of deracination.

>more evolved
there's your problem bud

Not agreeing with the other poster at all but all "native americans" come from Russia and Central Asia, quite recently really. Indeed, they were able to migrate due to an ice age.

>more evolved
come back when you actually understand evolution

>more evolved than
you do not understand evolution

/pol/ get out

...

Why are you so fucking stupid?

why are leftists so afraid of race related questions??

Actually we all know Amerindians are superior to europeans.

>/pol/ brainlet gets BTFO

>trying this hard

who invented guns and steam engines then ? Europeans, thats who. Therefore more evolved.

no its not. its painted its self into a corner. Us humans on the other hand are now able to manipulate our genomes and make complex tools. space, not just the sky is our limit baby.

no you are not. even your moon landing. Scientists=GERMAN, Engineers=BRITISH Money + monkeys to go in the space capsules=American

sometimes I wonder why did I spend my life studying biology
Then I remember it is not to look like these morons

Guns were invented by chinese, dumb eurangutan.
Amerindian superiority is based on their higher development rate. Get over it, chimp.

good point. They sometimes call people racist and at other times insist race does not exist.
Lefties just want their agenda pushed (what ever that is). I think its simply a power game. Any facts they don't like they wash over with 'ism's

gun powder chinese, maybe. Rifles that accurately fire stuff for miles, the swiss. Steam engines. British. also tell that to the chinks in 1860. WHO HAD THE BEST and most TECH equiped army. YES the Brits and French. Beat them hollow. THEN burned down the forbidden city and nicked all the crockery and jade statues!

>More evolved
It sounds like you believe evolution is a linear progression and not just random bullshit until something works.

You spent your whole life studying ? Did you ever get any qualifications? Most of us study to get a qualification to get a job.

|Read up on the "VIKING" rocket program. Wholly American. Wholly a FAILURE. Rocket 8 even escaped on a static test (you fucking morons). The soviets were beating you in the space/ICBM race you you had to get SS major (picked jews for the rocket factories in the 40's btw) Von Braun to help you out!

yeah I am with Alexander Shulgin (prob would have got a nobel prize for chemistry if the had not had all that trouble with the DEA) on that one. Ever wondered why most proteins can are made with the first two DNA sequences (i.e. 14 are most common).

>Most of us study to get a qualification to get a job.

Really? How do you know what most of us do?

Some of us (at least one of us) studies stuff all our lives because we like learning new things, we are interested in knowing more.

Yeah but you do a degree in engineering to get a job. You continue learning. But studying I feel is a term for being a full time student or a euphemism for being unemployed.

The three x 2 protein encoding though is pretty weird. Plus planetary formation models ALWAY have hot jupiters (so our inner planets are additions after the star formation, i.e. they are captures). + moon stabilising the rotation axis of the earth. lots of clues there. more than enough really. Common whats your conclusion?

Are you a social sciences lecturer by any chance?

>Samefagging this hard

>more evolved

top kek

>/pol/ brainlets literally learned evolution by watching pokemon
you can't make this up, do you think once a squid reaches level 45 it evolves into an octopus

>Neanderthals were more evolved than homo erectus because they migrated from africa.
Neandertals likely evolved from Heidelbergensis which had already moved into Africa around 400.000 BC. They weren't (likely) more intelligent than Erectus 'because they migrated' but because the earliest Erectus was
almost four times older and therefore would likely be more primitive.

Keep in mind that distinguishing different human species is quite difficult. The closer you get to our time, the more disagreement there is whether a skeleton is a Heidelbergensis, Erectus, Neandertal or some other hominin.

>Wouldn't it be reasonable then to say that Caucasian homo sapien is more evolved than African homo sapien because caucasoids migrated out of Africa and had to learn to farm and deal with seasonal changes more than African hunter-gatherers?

'More evolved' isn't a thing. I'm assuming you mean 'more intelligent' because people like to assume that linear progression towards more enlightened humans is a thing. But it depends on what you're basing it on. Just some (faulty) deduction without any concrete evidence isn't really helpful, obviously. 'Dealing with seasonal changes more' is vague as fuck and it doesn't automatically follow that this would make a species more intelligent. Both Africa and Europe have a wide degree of climates. The problem with your reasoning is that you seem to want to assume an absurdly absolute environmentally deterministic view of human development (i.e. climate = intelligence) without taking into account a myriad of different factors like relative isolation from other populations, available staple crops, etc. Northern Europeans were fucking barbarians for ages and developed further in large part due to intense influence from more Southern civilisations, which in turn were influenced and helped at an early stage by Near Eastern cultures.

I won't tell you to go back to /pol/, but read a fucking history book mate.

Yeah its like they use the term homophobia. As a natural heterosexual competitor men find other men annoying in that sphere of activity. A man who want to get it on with another man is therefore a double annoyance. Non only is user slightly, naturally, sexually repulsed by them, he also naturally relates to them as a rival. So what they left calls homophobia is actually normal. Booting in a queer in the bogs who has made an indecent suggestion is simply correct male behaviour. But lefties know this, and invent a demeaning ducking term, based on phobia or fear, to establish control of the narrative.

If evolution has purpose then your argument is invalid. Although famous as a chemist, shulgin uncovered evidence, in DNA protein structures, to show that it and therefore we, are engineered. Evolution has a destination.

>more evolved
Lrn2evolution fgt pls

>the ice age is the only reason
...if Evolution were that simple,
then you would understand it;
but it's not, and you don't.

>muh /pol/ boogeyman
Does the topic of race upset you?

>you really need to understand that "more evolved" is a meaningless meme
OP will never evolve to this level of understanding, user

>probably
Lrn2probabilly, Billy

>leftists
>Lefties
>agenda
gtfo /pol/itard

No for I am white northern European. Best of the best.

Read shulgin and/or try some of his discoveries

>evolution has purpose
found the Creationist/ID christfag

>Read shulgin
L0Lno there are better wastes of time

Evolution is a theory with significant gaps. No one here defending evolution is picking up on the three stage protein coding argument presented above. Seriously look at that one. It is the biggest argument against evolution going.

You don't understand much Chem then!

No think Chen bio of shulgin and perhaps a hint of Arthur c Clarke. You don't have to be religious to see the gaping holes in evolution theory

Homophobia is a controlling term. Its has its own political agenda. Natural anger against perceived male rapists prob more accurate

>understand much Chem
>shulgin
L0Lno fgt pls Lrn2pauling

Evolution is a law, retards.

What like f=ma? Nope it's only a theory. It's in the domain of social and bio (just) sciences as well which makes it weaker!

Correct conclusion, bad argument.

So, Amerindians are superior?

>men are competing to pass their genes on
>a man that literally cannot impede their progress is somehow a bad thing
>the "high-schooler trying to sound smart" tone this post gives off
absolute brainlet

>more evolved
Retard alert!
/pol/ or reddit is place for you.

It's amazing how neanderthals didn't develop past hunter gatherers for more than 300,000 years during the ice age, but it doesn't really matter or how behaviors change due to the environment over time but some how it's exclusively one group that "can never improve no matter what" even though subjecting any human group like that, should yield a similar result. Or such thing emerging from former hunter gatherer groups like the ancestors of bantu groups. I'm not even sure what you base comparison is for farming "outliers" since they did it independently along with iron smelting. That violent warrior gene variant is in 5%, those are technically outliers. Instead of rethinking how IQ or adaptations can effect populations, you're arguing in circles and contradicting your own points.

>If evolution has purpose

It doesn't though. Stating that there might be holes in evolution theory, that therefore we are engineered and 'Darwin btfo' without offering a viable alternative model which would even elaborate on what this 'engineering' or 'destination' even encompasses is a waste of time.

>neanderthals didn't develop past hunter gatherers ... during the ice age
Lrn2neolithic-revolution fgt pls

You can't see the wood for the trees. The planet's are not natural, ie. Not formed with our solar system. The planet had no o2 in the beginning. Complex creatures like humans are closed gene pools. Decay gets greater than progression. The evidence is all around you. The shulgin part is a big clue. But there are others. Holes in evo are clue as well.

>Northern Europeans were fucking barbarians for ages and developed further in large part due to intense influence from more Southern civilisations, which in turn were influenced and helped at an early stage by Near Eastern cultures.

Barbarian is untrue unless you just mean 'didn't have large cities and towns due to low population density due to reproducing slower due to availability of food'. Does this boat from 300BC look primitive?

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d4/Hjortspringsboat.jpg/1280px-Hjortspringsboat.jpg

If it does, please point out the equivalent complexity of boat design in Africa.

How about these helmets from 1000BC?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veksø_helmets

Social structures in Northern Europe were also very similar to modern days. You had councils, a lot of gender equality, and no significant history of e.g. honor killings.

Also, the ethnic group with more neanderthal admixture is the Amerindian. That would explain why Amerindians are superior to europeans.