- This topic has 78 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 7 months, 3 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
Why are Homo sapiens the only species of humans that survived?
-
A better question is, what are the main points supporting the out of africa theory? And does hyperdiffusionism have any supporting evidence?
-
Uh.. "We all one race, the uh… human race".
-
we aren’t the only ones who survived, it is "racist" to say otherwise.
RH- blood disproves out of africa theory. We couldn’t have come from there.
-
just liberal euphoria
-
-
Our intelligence let us build spears and we killed the others
-
>Our intelligence let us build spears and we killed the others
>thinks subsistence hunters can drive a species to extinction with spears
lol
God I wish they did, I want nothing more than a qt australopithecus gf.
Just get a midget aborigine girlfriend they’re literally the same modern day biological specimen that was mistaken for the invented "australopithecus species" except in Africa instead of Australia
>When a new niche is discovered by a species there is often a rapid proliferation of new species and then a collapse as one species evolves to dominate the niche.
The competitive exclusion principle only applies if the niche is resource-limited. There is absolutely no indication that was the case. Pre-history europe could support a 20x larger population of hunter-gatherer humans and not put a dent in resources thus wasn’t anywhere even remotely close to the carrying capacity for bipeds (look at population densities of north american indians which possibly was 100x greater for comparison) .-
>talks about abos
>doesn’t realise they wiped out the Australian megafauna-
>doesn’t realize Australia megafauna extinction was due to changed environment that would be utilized equally between "separate species" of homo thus if one went extinct it’s almost certain the other would too
The circumstantial mixture of stupidity of abos and climate of Australia would not have applied to europe anyway. Abos could not drive anything to extinction anywhere else, especially not a "rival and possibly slightly inferior homo species"-
I think you are really underestimating the abilities of weapons man. There was a small period of time where that slight advantage of intelligence was a major heads up.
Before we had weapons hominids were shit predators surviving off bugs and fruit and maybe the occasional roadkill.
Spears opened us up to being the strongest in the food chain and not just the smartest. I could absolutely see humans genociding a freaky look alike.
Its not going to happen quickly, but if everytime these two groups meet the inferior loses a member more often the not then its going to be put under more pressure. Can’t hunt their its human land, cant fish there, cant live there. Eventually even if they couldn’t do it in a war humans could have easily done it indirectly.
And humans traditionally aren’t a species that’s accepting of people who look different. So its a kind of issues I could easily imagine happened everywhere
-
>underestimating the abilities of weapons man. There was a small period of time where that slight advantage of intelligence was a major heads up
You can’t even prove ONLY homo sapien had spears so your entire post is woke af off assumptions..>Before we had weapons hominids were shit predators surviving off bugs and fruit and maybe the occasional roadkill.
Not relevant. All had weapons of some sort in the time frame we are referencing when/where they allegedly went extinct. The only question is if all of them had "advanced" weapons such spears, hatchets, and bows that are more than just sharp sticks and clubs. And in fact they probably all did to some extent. If you can discover how to create fire at will (which is very tricky if you have no clue how) you are smart enough to create spears and bows and basically every biped in Europe would have needed to use fire to live there year round.> I could absolutely see humans genociding a freaky look alike.
No you are not seeing something you are feeling something. Feelings are not arguments.>Its not going to happen quickly, but if everytime these two groups meet the inferior loses a member more often the not then its going to be put under more pressure
I already said no subsistence hunter-gatherer society can genocide a species (and the one off abo example doesn’t count for reasons listed)
There is vastly huge amounts of space to roam in europe. There is no feasible chance humans could have eradicated every last one. It’s very very a small chance to the point it should be dismissed.>Eventually even if they couldn’t do it in a war humans could have easily done it indirectly.
There is no indirect influence between tribes of subsistence hunter-gatherers. You see and kill or don’t kill, no further influence possible.>And humans traditionally aren’t a species that’s accepting of people who look different
Plenty are, plenty are not. It’s not "traditionally" one way or the other.-
>Neanderthals had just as good of weapons as early humans
>humans are peaceful creatures who don’t have a habit of genociding each other
>that one time didnt count because clearly the animals that evolved for millions of years to survive in an environment clearly weren’t meant to survive in said enviroment.
>tribes of people would never fear other tribes if people
You are one stupid freaking scrotebrain my man.-
I justified #1 in your newscrote-tier greentext and the rest are mouth breathing strawmen, of which their corresponding valid arguments you misrepresented I fully justified as well. Keep eating more lead paint chips because haven’t eaten enough for the brain damage to have a nice day.
>You know the abos caused the current state of Australia by burning the fuck out of everything to hunt right?
They probably (it’s contested) caused a significant change to the environment via burning it and this was possible because the environment was naturally conducive to being burned to a crisp in the first place. Europe is not. Much like how in the US east coast wildfires are not a concern at all but for west coast US it’s a huge concern. So take west coast US and make it far more extreme for pre-abo Australia. Like I said abo’s stupidity mixed with local climate would not apply anywhere else (as far as I’m aware there is no other similar local climate to pre-abo Australia). The megafauna had already adapted to the harsh environment but abos made it far worse by burning it, and the megafauna could not adapt to a new niche before they went extinct.Since none of these conditions apply to europe and all bipeds present would effectively share the same niche and suffer equally from a rapid environment change, it’s irrelevant to bring up the abo example as hunter-gatherers genociding a species. It’s a "one off" situation and would never happen again, especially to rival bipeds.
-
>Europe is not
Because Europeans have meticulously maintained domesticated forests for thousands of years. The climate was dryer at the height of the Bronze age when agriculture peak in land usage, inefficiency and unsustainability.-
>Because Europeans have meticulously maintained domesticated forests for thousands of years. The climate was dryer at the height of the Bronze age when agriculture peak in land usage, inefficiency and unsustainability.
It sounds like you are making this up bc you are thinking of dry-looking climates in movies about bronze age era. Lots of Europe is currently dry, especially around the Mediterranean. I would assume the huge mountain ranges in Europe vs the flatlands in Australian outback make a very significant difference in ability for wildfires to change the local climate..
As I said, it’s already contested that abos even affected the Australian climate, and I was being generous. It’s VERY contested.
I don’t need to argue this minute point. I’ve given multiple lines of reasoning why the abo "example" of genocide is irrelevant and the only counter has been "well maybe the circumstantial conditions are kinda sorta similar maybe, despite the underlying concept being massively contested" -
>It sounds like you are making this up bc you are thinking of dry-looking climates in movies about bronze age era.
No. Agriculture and deforestation peaked in the Bronze age also in Europe, there are many papers on this (the Bell Beaker culture was the first to start reforesting after agri peaked under them). Most of the forests in Europe are virgin wood (relatively speaking), the grasslands you see everywhere are man made, not natural. Throughout the middle ages Europeans understood the value of woodland not only for sustainable building material and other resources, but as windbreakers for maintaining topsoil quality as well as water capture and keeping acquifiers full. They maintained forest gardens, ranged and controlled animal populations etc. The ratio of farmland:forest you see in Germanic countries has been maintained like that on purpose for thousands of years. We always assume our ancestors are backwards and ignorant, but they understood far more about agriculture and the environment than the overwhelming majority of people do today.Furtheremore, after learning about climates like the Chilean desert most people assume that geography and ocean currents play a bigger role in local climate than it actually does. Most places on Earth could be just as wet as Europe if it were reforested, since forests are highly effective and breaking wind, capturing moisture and improving soil quality. The forests itself affect the climate.
If you can imagine the abundance of life found in desert oases surely you must be able to imagine expanding those oases across the entire desert by simply expanding the acquifier preserves and minimizing the moisture carried away. In fact you don’t even have to take my word for it; see the reforestation project in the Sahel. Yes these are dry climate planets, but can be transitioned once are you able to maintain more ground water and moisture locally althought that would take thousands of years.
-
>We always assume our ancestors are backwards and ignorant
That’s more of a liberal and soicuck thing.
A lot of people actually don’t. -
>this much words responding to a single greentext sentence
ok>No. Agriculture and deforestation peaked in the Bronze age also in Europe, there are many papers on this (the Bell Beaker culture was the first to start reforesting after agri peaked under them). Most of the forests in Europe are virgin wood (relatively speaking), the grasslands you see everywhere are man made, not natural. Throughout the middle ages Europeans understood the value of woodland not only for sustainable building material and other resources, but as windbreakers for maintaining topsoil quality as well as water capture and keeping acquifiers full
Wow you totally missed the point. Your belief the climate was dry in this period was the part that’s probably made up. Good for you for sorta proving there was probably peak agriculture/deforestation in the bronze age. I did not imply there wasn’t.And you totally missed the underlying theme: abos actually causing the megafauna extinction/genocide, via changing the climate by fire hunting, is highly contested and thus a very poor example of subsistence level hunter gatherers causing the genocide of a species which is what this thread is about. You can read up on the contested nature of this topic here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire-stick_farming#History
-
-
-
-
>You can’t even prove ONLY homo sapien had spears so your entire post is woke af off assumptions..
There is no need to. Others can have theirs spears too. Wins who is better in warfare. Many such cases in written historyThough ofc club vs spear javelin and bow losses had so dumbest humans were exterminated first.
>And humans traditionally aren’t a species that’s accepting of people who look different
Plenty are, plenty are not. It’s not "traditionally" one way or the other. For genocides its enough if only part are genocidal,. They will do job for themselves and for the others.
-
-
-
>due to changed environment
You know the abos caused the current state of Australia by burning the fuck out of everything to hunt right?
-
-
-
-
chimpanzee also "build spears" anon
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War
An example of one chimpanzee community, wiping out the other.-
How can Chimps "enslave" other chimps exactly?
-
-
-
*throw spears*
-
-
God I wish they did, I want nothing more than a qt australopithecus gf.
-
Black africans have 20% ghost DNA, presumably H erectus. Australian aborigines have up to 10% Denisovan DNA
Try a filipina girl, depending on the island they can have australopithecene features
-
>denisovan cro magnon neanderthal erectus
none of these meme species are real
-
-
Cute primitive, would breed a tribe of hunters with
But she looks anatomically like a modern human, so she’d probably not be crouching like that -
I feel so erectus right now
-
just go to Baltimore
-
i see tons of these on the subway each day
-
-
We probably genocided the other ones. I mean we’ve done the same for smaller differences.
-
We had sex with some of them and combined forces. The other ones returned to monke. Oh, also one of them developed space travel and became a breakaway civ before recorded human history but we don’t talk about that.
-
because we da bes
-
When a new niche is discovered by a species there is often a rapid proliferation of new species and then a collapse as one species evolves to dominate the niche.
-
The Finno-Korean Hyperwar made the other homos extinct.
-
we ate them, just look at chimps, they are eating a monkey right now probably.
-
How white would their skin have been? I know that early humans had white skin before adapting to the harsh african sun after losing their fur but at what stage would that have happened?
Homo erectus is still pretty hairy but is he hairy enough that he wouldn’t have yet become a negro?
I also find it interesting how he lacks the neoteny of (non-african) homo sapiens.-
The "out of Africa" has even less proof than the existence of Atlantis does.
-
-
Neanderthals survived. Sapiens trying to wipe us out now.
-
Australia has only a few generations left before it looks like America.
-
Why does that map miss Egypt?
-
-
crossbreeding between neanderthals, sapiens and denisovan means it’s the same species
-
-
A tiger can breed with lion, yet they are not the same spicies. In fact, much like the liger is infertile, so too are mixed race human species. When you mix too much Denisovan, Neantherthal and Homo Sapien DNA you drastically increase the risk of infertility.
-
Tigons aren’t infertile.
-
-
-
Tha homo sapien in that pic looks like he’s about to rape everyone in front of him.
-
they weren’t. there exist multiple homo species, but we pretend they don’t because we’re all O N E
R A C ET H E
H U M A N
R A C E
-
Assimilation theory. Neanderthals, Erectus and others assimilated into ways of Homo Sapiens. They forced into mixing and genocides.
-
No one knows. my theory is that the thing that made wise wise homos so special is language
-
All those other human species still exist though, it’s just that they’re a genetic construct thinly spread across the human population. Neanderthals still exist, denisovans, etc. In fact only about 7% of our genes or unique to modern humans. Humans are basically the cumulative total of most other human species.
-
>survived
Anon, I… -
Around 93% of DNA of all humans is identical to other primates, the remaining 7% of DNA – Homo specific Genes is what makes us humans (different from the other primates).
Here is the division of this 7% homo specific genes in Europeans and African people.
In Europeans – 4% neanderthal genome, 1% sapien gene, 2% other eurasian hominid (erectus, denisova) genome.
In Africans – 4% sapien genome, 2% African erectus genes, 1% archaic "ghost" gene (not present in any other people)
Homo Georgicus is the oldest hominid discovered outside Africa, and earliest specimen of proto-Erectus (1,850,000 years ago). Found in the Caucasus, it would be the ancestor of both Homo Antecessor (800,000 years ago, found in Spain) and Neanderthals/Denisovans.
Both Neanderthals and Denisovas had 15% of the Eurasian Erectus Antecessor / Georgicus genome in their DNA, and Europeans have a Neanderthal Genome…that’s where we come from. Not from Africa. We are natives of Eurasia.
-
Wait a second, negroes are more sapiens than us?
So it’s actual neanderthals who gave us the smart gene?
Can we rename homo sapiens to homo crimen statistic?-
Yeah. Africans have more sapien genome than Europeans or asians.
-
Sub Saharan Africans have the largest amount of archaic ghost dna, anon.
-
>ghost
It’s called Homo Ngubus
-
-
-
Not just the smart gene.
> Blond hair (of all shades), which is associated with the HERC2 gene of Neanderthal origin, also associated with naturally blue eyes. It is 500,000 years old and is not present in any other ancient non-Neanderthal hominid.
>Herc2 gene that regulates depigmentation(in humans as well as polar bears,who determine white fur in bears and blond hair bue eyes in humans)takes 500,000 years to stabilize and become hereditary,while self-domestication modifications are very rapid. Dwarf Mammoths from Wrangler Island("self-domesticated by Insularity") became dwarfs in 10,000 years
So, to conclude, Europeans genetically have all the archaic Neanderthal lineages (blond hair, blue eyes, fair skin etc), but obviously their physical form and their skull evolved, as happened to other populations in the rest of the world ( also in Africa …)
-
>Wait a second, negroes are more sapiens than us?
Yes, lol. Black racial supremacist politicians in South Africa actually often cite this fact to call Whites and Asians subhuman.You guys need to get out more.
-
Why am I supposed to know or care about what some boss sis half a world away from me is saying to justify state-mandated racism?
-
Simple really
"To avoid getting cucked, you need to be at least twice as mean as your enemies."
-Sun Tzun Art of Warrior -
Because pretty soon it won’t be half a world away from you, lol.
-
-
-
-
-
> Blond hair (of all shades), which is associated with the HERC2 gene of Neanderthal origin, also associated with naturally blue eyes. It is 500,000 years old and is not present in any other ancient non-Neanderthal hominid.
>Herc2 gene that regulates depigmentation(in humans as well as polar bears,who determine white fur in bears and blond hair bue eyes in humans)takes 500,000 years to stabilize and become hereditary,while self-domestication modifications are very rapid. Dwarf Mammoths from Wrangler Island("self-domesticated by Insularity") became dwarfs in 10,000 years
So, to conclude, Europeans genetically have all the archaic Neanderthal lineages (blond hair, blue eyes, fair skin etc), but obviously their physical form and their skull evolved, as happened to other populations in the rest of the world ( also in Africa …)
Good posts, thanks for the info Anon
-
-
competition
-
There’s at least 4 species of humans around
-
Fire.
This is the correct answer. Once we had that ability to harness it was over for them. OVER.-
Fire and tool use predated sapiens
-
-
This answers all questions, really great article.
https://prehistoricfantasy.blogspot.com/2016/07/towards-more-more-logically-acceptable.html?m=1
-
It would be racist to suggest otherwise.
-
Because we raped and ate the rest.
-
There are a lot of archaic lineages mixed in with sub Saharan africans, especially pygmies and san, and auatralonesians.
-
>There are a lot of archaic lineages mixed in with sub Saharan africans, especially pygmies and san, and auatralonesians.
And I posted a article on That exact subject with all the answers.Come on now read the thread before repeating what’s already been answered.
https://prehistoricfantasy.blogspot.com/2016/07/towards-more-more-logically-acceptable.html?m=1
-
-
>survived
give it time anon -
>Why are Homo sapiens the only species of humans that survived?
Actually its 6 species but because of political correctness they were lumped into one.
Many others were just exterminated by other humans in wars. We could witness such process in Africa with pygmies btw. -
basically because we killed everything between us and chimps
-
Papuans have high Neanderthal admixture as well as Denisovan and Early Homo genes, some Indians have both Early Homo and Neanderthal genes, and nearly all modern populations have introgression from the Microcephalin D hominid and LM3, a group of Anatomically Modern Humans that branched off at least 150,000 years before Mitochondrial Eve (as evidenced by the DNA of Mungo Man and the LM3 insertion found in Modern Humans).
In short, all Modern Humans are Neanderthal Hybrids except a few isolated groups in Sub-Saharan Africa, who are hybrids with a comparable Archaic Hominid that was likely better suited to Sub-Sahara. 70% of modern Neanderthal hybrids are also Erectus hybrids, as evidenced by Microcephalin D, and some populations in South East Asia, Oceana, and India are also hybrids with late surviving Early Homo, as evidenced by the introgrPession of OAS1. -
Around this time, an Anatomically Modern Human population with significant Neanderthal genetic contribution arose, probably arising in the Levant, Middle East, or North east Africa). He began assimilating all Erectines, Neanderthaloids, and other Anatomically Modern Humans. Therefore, all Modern Humans, with the exclusion of some isolated groups of Sub-Saharan African, have pieces of the Neanderthal genome. However, Sub-Saharan Africans have pieces of the African Homo Erectus Genome, and some West Africans have introgression from a 400,000 year old "heidelberg" y haplogroup
-
Recent analysis of DNA extracted from two Eurasian forms of archaic human show that more genetic variants are shared with humans currently living in Eurasia than with anatomically modern humans in sub-Saharan Africa
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.