Neanderthals Had Enlarged Liver And Kidneys From Meat-Heavy Diet

[yerrag]

no, I was being sarcastic. Maybe there was some cannibalism in either direction, nobody knows.

Haha, my sarcasm detector is deficient.

 

[Pet Peeve]

No, all modern Eurasians are direct descendants of Homo sapiens, with a little bit of neanderthal thrown in.

This is the current consensus. I read articles in 2009 claiming it was impossible that modern humans had any neanderthal dna, this field is changing rapidly. The current consensus is that Neanderthals had blonde hair and blue eyes for hundreds of thousands of years, but Homo sapiens from Africa came to Europe and killed them all. Then 6000 years ago the africans too became blonde and blue eyed in Scandinavia, and these recessive genes then spread out all over Europe and even down to the berbers in North Africa.

 

[Blossom]

 

[yerrag]

Doesn't that make you a minority?

 

[Pet Peeve]

 

[lvysaur]

The current consensus is that Neanderthals had blonde hair and blue eyes for hundreds of thousands of years

Not Middle Eastern neanderthals, or even all european neanderthals. There are a couple in europe that may have been light pigmented, the rest are agreed to be dark.

Then 6000 years ago the africans too became blonde and blue eyed in Scandinavia

There were foragers 9000 years ago in france with blue eyes

 

[Blossom]

View attachment 13263

I’m not sure whether to give you my congrats or condolences. :)
My husband had in the 300’s too.

 

[Pet Peeve]

I’m not sure whether to give you my congrats or condolences. :)
My husband had in the 300’s too.

One of my friends thought it was hilarious. I like it.

 

[bk_]

Europe was populated at the time, by neanderthals. African humans invaded the Mideast, and bred with Mideastern neanderthals. Then they spread to the rest of Eurasia.

None of this has to do with "civilization", which happened 100k years later

Is this the “out of Africa” theory? I find this theory to be highly politically motivated. The vast differences in skeletal structures, prevalance of genetic diseases, colored eyes, IQ, and mtDNA do not seem to support this theory. Is it not more likely that european populations of that time were already close to existing phenotypes and then bred with the neanderthals?

 

[lvysaur]

Is it not more likely that european populations of that time were already close to existing phenotypes and then bred with the neanderthals?

no

 

[Gone Peating]

no

yes

 

[lvysaur]

yes

You can believe in fairy tales if you'd like. Some people find value in doing so.

 

[bk_]

You can believe in fairy tales if you'd like. Some people find value in doing so.

Perhaps we are waiting for you to enlighten us with what you know otherwise we will believe what we do with our existing knowledge not that it add much value to our day to day life but more for intellectual curiosity that pertains to this thread.

 

[lvysaur]

Perhaps we are waiting for you to enlighten us

There's nothing to enlighten you about, the evidence is open for all to see.

The archaeological record of modern humans in Africa is the biggest, oldest and most diverse, despite the fact that all of Africa has a hot climate that doesn't fossilize well.

There is also a religious cohort of people who will never accept this, because they are anti-African. I don't bother addressing these people because it's just a waste of time and energy.

 

[yerrag]

because they are anti-African.

I seriously doubt you mean this. It's not helpful to this discussion.

 

[Gone Peating]

There's nothing to enlighten you about, the evidence is open for all to see.

The archaeological record of modern humans in Africa is the biggest, oldest and most diverse, despite the fact that all of Africa has a hot climate that doesn't fossilize well.

There is also a religious cohort of people who will never accept this, because they are anti-African. I don't bother addressing these people because it's just a waste of time and energy.

There's also a lot of evidence to suggest otherwise... Just because you assume that everyone who holds the opposite opinion as you is racist against Africans does not make your claim true

The truth is that we don't know for sure

 

[lvysaur]

I seriously doubt you mean this.

No, I genuinely mean it. I see various easily debunkable things like this all the time, simply because there's a market for it. Demographics are demographics.

There's also a lot of evidence to suggest otherwise... Just because you assume that everyone who holds the opposite opinion as you is racist against Africans does not make your claim true

The truth is that we don't know for sure

There is no evidence that suggests otherwise--even the claim made by the other guy at the beginning doesn't make any sense: "The vast differences in skeletal structures, prevalance of genetic diseases, colored eyes, IQ, and mtDNA do not seem to support this theory"

All of those are traits that are subject to selection, and can evolve differently in the span of 200,000 years. The only exception being mtDNA, which is passed directly from the mother. African mitochondrial DNA has far more genetic diversity than Asian/euro, and hence is just another piece of evidence in the huge arsenal of evidences for an African origin of humanity. The Occam's razor explanation here is that the guy has no idea what he's talking about, and has a personal problem with Africa's status of urheimat.

Nobody "knows anything for sure", but it's quite funny how we never see the same baseless "concerned doubt" concerning the origins of dinosaurs or sharks or other creatures, no? :^)

 

[yerrag]

genuinely

I meant the anti-African part of it. You mean people won't agree with you because what you say has an African origin to mankind and just because of that they are against it?

 

[Gone Peating]

No, I genuinely mean it. I see various easily debunkable things like this all the time, simply because there's a market for it. Demographics are demographics.


There is no evidence that suggests otherwise--even the claim made by the other guy at the beginning doesn't make any sense: "The vast differences in skeletal structures, prevalance of genetic diseases, colored eyes, IQ, and mtDNA do not seem to support this theory"

All of those are traits that are subject to selection, and can evolve differently in the span of 200,000 years. The only exception being mtDNA, which is passed directly from the mother. African mitochondrial DNA has far more genetic diversity than Asian/euro, and hence is just another piece of evidence in the huge arsenal of evidences for an African origin of humanity. The Occam's razor explanation here is that the guy has no idea what he's talking about, and has a personal problem with Africa's status of urheimat.

Nobody "knows anything for sure", but it's quite funny how we never see the same baseless "concerned doubt" concerning the origins of dinosaurs or sharks or other creatures, no? :^)

Nice smiley face and smug remark you little ****, if you ever talked to me that way in person I would knock your head off

I won't attempt to link any information bc I see your mind is already made up

 

[lvysaur]

You mean people won't agree with you because what you say has an African origin to mankind and just because of that they are against it?

Yes. Given the amount of hyperscrutinization of the Out of Africa theory, and the relative paucity of such scrutinization on other origins of humanity, it's pretty safe to say that most of it comes from a place of supremacism.

Similar story with the Solutrean hypothesis. Or the out of India hypothesis, if you want to look at another region's supremacism.

Nice smiley face and smug remark you little ****, if you ever talked to me that way in person I would knock your head off

Aww, how fragile :^(
I hope you get your estrogen sorted out.