Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But that isn't scientifically accurate. The gene for light eyes is a mutation that occurred around 10K years ago, but neanderthals died out 40K years ago. Skin and hair genes are thought to come from neanderthals, supposedly there was some sort of evolutionary advantage, but I don't think any research says lighter eyes are tied to the neanderthals.
You're right. I don't agree with those types of reconstructions. I was just rebutting the claim that Neanderthals are depicted as swarthy when that hasn't been the case for many years. I personally believe that Neanderthals were very hairy. With their large noses and broad bodies they fit the classic depiction of trolls. I think that old European troll stories are based on a memory of Neanderthals in the area. Old stories even tell of them living in caves.
I think that the old images of Neanderthals were closer to the truth.
Oddly, people nowadays claim that showing Neanderthals that way is somehow racist. So we see reconstructions of them looking like northern Europeans, which makes no sense.
To return to the Australoids, one of the things that is kind of interesting is that they often look a little different. They sometimes have brow ridges that we tend to think of a being associated with earlier humans. Since the tests have shown they are largely (95% or more) modern human with a bit more denisovan than most other places, it makes me wonder what the Denisovans looked like. Or perhaps they have a bit more H. erectus remaining. I heard somewhere that some of the dentition patterns in modern E. Asians seem to have parallels with H. erectus fossil from that region, and so could be relicts carried forward.
I don't think that makes them anyone "less" or "more" human than anyone else, but the whole dynamic of different branches of humanity separating and backbreeding together is pretty fascinating stuff.
Perhaps the notions of "race", in the broad terms that physical anthropologist describe it, is based on such past dynamics. While it is true we are all human and deserving of equal rights and respect, these patterns are both interesting and important, in my opinion. It is the story of humanity, and as a world-spanning evolving species, we certainly have some interesting and varied origins.
They sometimes have brow ridges that we tend to think of a being associated with earlier humans.
Maybe they are the earlier humans who didn't change as much as East Asians and Europeans. They are kind of like the Sub Saharan African, that remained in the same place and didn't change as much as the others.
To return to the Australoids, one of the things that is kind of interesting is that they often look a little different. They sometimes have brow ridges that we tend to think of a being associated with earlier humans. Since the tests have shown they are largely (95% or more) modern human with a bit more denisovan than most other places, it makes me wonder what the Denisovans looked like. Or perhaps they have a bit more H. erectus remaining. I heard somewhere that some of the dentition patterns in modern E. Asians seem to have parallels with H. erectus fossil from that region, and so could be relicts carried forward.
I don't think that makes them anyone "less" or "more" human than anyone else, but the whole dynamic of different branches of humanity separating and backbreeding together is pretty fascinating stuff.
Perhaps the notions of "race", in the broad terms that physical anthropologist describe it, is based on such past dynamics. While it is true we are all human and deserving of equal rights and respect, these patterns are both interesting and important, in my opinion. It is the story of humanity, and as a world-spanning evolving species, we certainly have some interesting and varied origins.
Melanesians are closer to about 10 percent archaic humans, because they average 6 percent Denisovan and 4 percent Neanderthal. There may also be other admixture that we are unaware of, but we lack the genomes of any other branches of archaic human to compare. There's a strong likelihood that the Denisovans who migrated to the southeast Asia area encountered homo erectus populations and that there was some interbreeding. Even if the Denisovans in the southeast Asia region didn't interbreed with homo erectus, they weren't genetically the same as the ones who moved to Siberia. We compared the genome of Denisovans found in Siberia, which were a divergent population than the ones who spread southeast.
And yes, east Asians have similar dental structures as homo erectus found in Asia. It's significant, because only Asian homo erectus and modern east Asians share this dental structure, most notably the shovel shaped incisors. Homo erectus from other parts of the world don't have shovel shaped incisors. It's unlikely that this is just a case of convergent evolution.
Maybe they are the earlier humans who didn't change as much as East Asians and Europeans. They are kind of like the Sub Saharan African, that remained in the same place and didn't change as much as the others.
I don't think so, because genetic research has shown that all human populations are by an overwhelming majority (> 90%) dominated by relatively recent (< 100,000 year old) "out of Africa" genes. Whatever advantage that last version of African humanity had, it was enough to swamp all the existing genomes, so that only remnants of older types exist here and there.
Melanesians are closer to about 10 percent archaic humans, because they average 6 percent Denisovan and 4 percent Neanderthal. There may also be other admixture that we are unaware of, but we lack the genomes of any other branches of archaic human to compare. There's a strong likelihood that the Denisovans who migrated to the southeast Asia area encountered homo erectus populations and that there was some interbreeding. Even if the Denisovans in the southeast Asia region didn't interbreed with homo erectus, they weren't genetically the same as the ones who moved to Siberia. We compared the genome of Denisovans found in Siberia, which were a divergent population than the ones who spread southeast.
And yes, east Asians have similar dental structures as homo erectus found in Asia. It's significant, because only Asian homo erectus and modern east Asians share this dental structure, most notably the shovel shaped incisors. Homo erectus from other parts of the world don't have shovel shaped incisors. It's unlikely that this is just a case of convergent evolution.
Great post. Given this. I really find it odd that anyone would claim that races have no biological basis. Thye most certainly do, and they date back through the history of humanity.
Per your previous post about Neanderthals. I am not sure if trolls apply or wildmen, but Eurasian myths seem replete with references to early hominids, usually as something scary in the woods. But I agree that they likely have their origins in real observations from the times when the different hominids coexisted.
Last edited by Fiddlehead; 03-07-2015 at 01:58 PM..
Great post. Given this. I really find it odd that anyone would claim that races have not biological basis. The most certainly do, and they date back through the history of humanity.
Yes, if we take archaic admixture into account, then some groups have roots in a particular part of the world that stretches back hundreds of thousands of years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddlehead
Per your previous post. I am not sure if trolls apply or wildmen, but Eurasian myths seem replete with references to early hominids, usually as something scary in the woods. But I agree that they likely have their origins in real observations from the times when the different hominids coexisted.
We only know about archaic humans whose remains we have found. There may have been species of human that once existed that we'll never know about. Not too long ago, we had no idea that homo floresiensis, the hobbit, ever existed. Interestingly, the people of Flores have a folktale about small hairy humans that they once coexisted with called the Ebu Gogo. Their tales and description of it match very well with the remains of homo floresiensis that were found on the island.
You're right. I don't agree with those types of reconstructions. I was just rebutting the claim that Neanderthals are depicted as swarthy when that hasn't been the case for many years. I personally believe that Neanderthals were very hairy. With their large noses and broad bodies they fit the classic depiction of trolls. I think that old European troll stories are based on a memory of Neanderthals in the area. Old stories even tell of them living in caves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacus713
If there is a more racist thread than this one anywhere on this board, I certainly have not seen it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
