Can someone explain what happens in the area I circled?
Is that like, theoretical, or are there non homo sapien genes discovered within the L0 group of humans, the khosians, that aren't in other human groups?
Can someone explain what happens in the area I circled?
Can someone explain what happens in the area I circled?
Falling into your wing while paragliding is called 'gift wrapping' and turns you into a dirt torpedo pic.twitter.com/oQFKsVISkI— Mental Videos (@MentalVids) March 15, 2023
does this mean idaltu came after khoisans had split from other modern humans or it's just because they lived in a completely different part of africa?
weird because idaltu is barely considered homo sapiens
hm, yeah I think the graph is just a bit off with the dates.
Like there it looks like khoisans split off 300 thousand years ago, but while looking it up it seems like they're only supposed to have split off like 100 thousand years ago.
We don't actually know how long ago they split off the archeology for his part of human history is very patchy. We do know that it occurred very early in human pre-history. I think the oldest 'modern human' finds in southern africa are dated to 125000 years ago but it should be noted that the ancestors of the Khoi and San didn't originate from south africa so we are looking at a divergence of 150000-200000, based on finds from other parts of africa. 300000 would be an extreme estimate IMO and unlikely.
The answer is that the Khoisan have ghost population dna. It has been suggested that it was intermixing with heidelbergensis populations but I don't think that is proven. Homo rhodesiensis might be another candidate.
>The answer is that the Khoisan have ghost population dna. It has been suggested that it was intermixing with heidelbergensis populations but I don't think that is proven. Homo rhodesiensis might be another candidate.
This is exciting.
I need to remind myself that we only discovered denisovans like a decade ago.
>Homo rhodesiensis might be another candidate.
Homo Rhodesians? As in white people?
>think the oldest 'modern human' finds in southern africa are dated to 125000 years ago
Depends on your definition of modern human. Florisbad Man is 250kya, and they were archaic Homo sapiens.
Pretty certain that he is still debatable. Might be a mix of sapien and heiberdegense
>Might be a mix of sapien and heiberdegense
You mean a mix between sapiens and bodoensis?
This all sounds complicated. How do you know when something diverges and at what point does something become a subspecies? Like up until 15,000 years ago most Europeans didn't have pale skin. Before that you'd notice small differences between them and Africans. So what traits or how much time has to come by before something is it's own species or sub species.
Technically human races are subspecies.
Academics will never use the term and obviously there are significant crossover genetics between various people groups so it can never be 100% accurate but their are more phenotypical differences between the different human races than say the 4 chimpanzee sub species.
>the 4 chimpanzee sub species.
The four chimpanzees subspecies diverged from each other over 400,000 years ago (with the western chimpanzee being the most divergent at 600kya from the rest), which is roughly equivalent to the most conservative split between Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis, and chimpanzees also have far more genetic diversity than modern humans do, not just from general divergence but also through admixture events of their own combined with far longer stages of isolation. Bonobos interbred with chimpanzees, as did a ghost species of chimpanzee that no longer exists.
I should also mention that Western chimpanzees tend to behave radically different from other chimpanzees, to the point where some scientists are theorizing that they might be their own species of Pan, similar to how bonobos acquired their own unique species status.
I wonder how scientists can prove this when archeology of chimps is so limited and 3 of the four subspecies live geographically next to one another.
Either way other species have recognised subspecies diverged more recently. Bengal tigers apparently diverged only 8400 years ago and Siberian tigers 10000 years ago. Maybe chimps were a bad example.
>Bengal tigers apparently diverged only 8400 years ago and Siberian tigers 10000 years ago.
Bengal tigers and Siberian tigers are the same subspecies, Panthera tigris tigris and Panthera tigris sondaica are the only two subspecies of tiger, and even so many researchers are suggesting scrapping the two subspecies as a concept due to limited differences between the two. Interestingly, lions also had far more subspecies, but it seems that there are also only two subspecies: The West/Central/Barbary/Asiatic lion, and the East/Southern lion, who started to diverge from each other about 200,000 years ago, and have larger genetic differences between than modern humans do.
As for the West African chimpanzee being so unique, scientists actually ignored it historically for the East African chimpanzee for a very long time, not realizing how unique it was in behavior and genetics until very recently. Even if they do live somewhat close to each other, genetic isolation and mutation can speed up divergence at rates alien to Homo sapiens. That being said, there is potential evidence that another subspecies of Homo sapiens existed alongside our own: Homo sapiens idaltu. They had a similar (slightly larger) brain capacity than we do but with a far more robust frame and skull, being more reminiscent of archaic Homo sapiens and even Homo bodoensis to a degree. Here it is on the right compared to Homo bodoensis/rhodesiensis on the left and center.
What's the source btw? I want to read about this.
I hate homo heiberdegense
Literally just a homo erectus
>Literally just a homo erectus
Incorrect, they had much larger brains and stockier builds. In fact, European Heidelbergensis is actually proto-Neanderthal in nature, and African Heidelbergensis is Homo rhodesiensis/bodoensis.
people stopped making this mistake in the 1700s
you're more retarded than somebody from the 18th century
>or are there non homo sapien genes discovered within the L0 group of humans, the khosians, that aren't in other human groups?
Yes. People often bring attention to the non-Sapiens ancestry of West Africans for racist brownie points, but East, Southern, and Central Africans have two different species of archaic hominins in their DNA, one last sharing a common ancestor about 700kya, the other sharing one about 1.2-1.3mya.
>but East, Southern, and Central Africans have two different species of archaic hominins
Can you please show me an Archaic DNA East Africans (Horners) carry that is not less than 1% Neanderthal?
What is that supposed to show, were are Horners having archaic DNA you dumb homosexual.
I wasn't talking about Horners. East African hunter-gatherers are people like the Hadza and Sandawe.
He's right. West Africans are more related to you than they are to the Khoisan, despite West Africans having ancestry from a population of Homo sapiens that diverged BEFORE the Khoisan themselves. About 200,000 years ago, there were four populations of Homo sapiens in Africa: The ancestors of the Khoisan, the ancestors of Central African Pygmies, the ancestors of an extinct archaic population that diverged before the others that lived in West Africa, and the ancestors of West and East Africans and well as Eurasians.
>West Africans are more related to you than they are to the Khoisan,
This would have been true a thousand years ago but most modern khoisan have significant bantu admixture.
It's still the case today, as West Africans are not Bantus, and West Africans themselves are about 9% West Eurasian.
West Africans are Bantus. Moron
>West Africans are Bantus.
That's like saying Europeans are Iranians. They are related, but they are not the same, and West Africans are older than Bantus. Proto-Bantu speaking people diverged from other West Africans 5,000 years ago between the border of Southeastern Nigeria and all of Cameroon, with Cameroon being an ancestral homeland for these people.
Just to be clear with you, what race is this man?
He's Melanesian, a race of people found in the Pacific Islands, not Africa. He's closer to you than he is to any black person. If you can't see the difference you have facial blindness.
That is archaic human DNA found in some Africans that can't be pinned to a particular fossil yet. basically it's like Neanderthals but we haven't found the actual species yet, so it's still out there waiting to be discovered. currently we only know about to them from their DNA remnants in modern humans. the second branch is an even more archaic human admixture.
And all non africans have neaderthal dna. Some Asians have denisovian dna. Your point?
I guess his point is that it would partly answer OPs question.
We don't know if it was Homo erectus because Homo erectus went extinct in Africa over a million years ago, and survived in Asia until 110,000 years ago. Furthermore, Homo erectus wasn't that stupid,
Upwards of 19, with an average of 6.6-7%, and a lower end of 2%.
Late Asian Homo Erectus had a cranial capacity of only about 300cc highest subpopulation average in modern humans (about 1400cc).
Homo erectus's brain capacity is between 600cc at the lowest for the most primitive members 1.9 million years ago (for the ones found in Georgia) and 1000-1200cc for the ones in Africa and especially Asia. Gorillas have an average capacity of 500 cc.
from your responses I'd say you, at least, have a very low density of brain matter
Intelligence is a function of the number of neurons in your body and their connections. Brain size definitely matters it's a cope to pretend otherwise.
There's a reason why humans have the second largest number of neurons on the planet and are the dominant species. The two are obviously related and anyone even slightly interested in neuroscience would know this.
>intelligence is a function of neurons
>neurons have weight
>volume/weight is density
how is this hard? Like I said, you are proof that humans can have very little brain density.
>Kenyans and Sudanese have "homo erectus" tier admixture
I said Horners, retard. like Cushitic/Ethiosemitic/Northern Omotics (no southern, too admixed)
>Kenya and South Sudan is considered part of the horn culturally
Are you retarded? Is China part of the west? These people are former animist protestant Chrisitans, far from Horners culturally, even on the surface.
>They speak the horn's language, so somebody did some raping
No and no, they don't speak the horn's language. their language belongs to the great lakes, even the very few ones that speak the language have been culturally and genetically assimilated
>Tons of people in Kenya speak Cushitic, the fuck are you talking about
yeah like less than 10%, and aside from Somalis, majority of so called Cushitic speakers even some kenya Somalis are admixed. but that doesn't matter since kenya results are mostly Bantu/Nilotic and does not reflect on the horn. I don't know what you are trying to argue here you are showing Bantu results from Kenya have archaic DNA and trying to relate that Homers which makes no sense.