Are Australoids living Archaic Humans?

[Dominicanese]

Are Australoids just living Archaic Humans or fossils?

if you look at some of the old skulls and their skulls, they are very similar crianologically speaking as well as other things

even their bodyshapes are that of early humans and their heights

and they tend to be very strong people physically and the women too

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/1b/79/88/1b7988463cc9054d209b390def6b0ec9.jpg
http://www.kiandrahistory.net/MurrayJack.jpg
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/07/05/world/05australia.600.jpg
http://themindunleashed.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/austrailannn.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/d8/33/42/d8334297947f49930661683930d0489c.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/e4/17/88/e41788fe0ca4cb6da3e33fcfc5d623c5.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/2a/57/78/2a5778e380a21e196dc5a5645e0811e5.jpg
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/g0RiqwvrLmU/hqdefault.jpg

[Profileid]

No.
They're just people.

[Nurzat]

Are Australoids just living Archaic Humans or fossils?
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/e4/17/88/e41788fe0ca4cb6da3e33fcfc5d623c5.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/2a/57/78/2a5778e380a21e196dc5a5645e0811e5.jpg


WOW

[AphroditeWorshiper]

No, because they have more Homo Sapiens ancestry, so they're not "Archaic humans"

but they have considerable Archaic hominid(Denisovan) genes

[Dominicanese]

No, because they have more Homo Sapiens ancestry, so they're not "Archaic humans"

but they have considerable Archaic hominid(Denisovan) genes

what i mean is

are they ancient homo sapiens

or are homo sapiens just another term to describe modern humans?

[Hadouken]

http://up.picr.de/27635492en.jpg

[LoLeL]

No, just more isolated.

[Grab the Gauge]

No, their features are all surprisingly modern when you look more closely at them. Hkwever they do have more archaic human admixture than any living population. The average non-African has around 1.2% Neanderthal and roughly zero Denisovan A-DNA admixture. Australian Aboriginals have 1.5 Neanderthal and 0.895% Denisovan A-DNA admixture. They're not archaic humans by a long shot but this does go to show you how big of a difference 0.5% admixture can make.

Most of the aboriginal Australians facial features are quite different from archaic humans. Unfortunately no one knows for sure what Denisovsn facial features look like, but they were almost certainly nothing like Aboriginal Australians. Also, skeletally speaking, Aboriginal Australians were quite gracile. It's easy to take s close up picture of the most well-fed aboriginals and make them look muscular, but you have to take how close the camera is in to perspective. Most aboriginal australians were thin, linearly-built people, as you would expect low intensity foragers to be in a hot and waterless climate.

http://imagecache6.allposters.com/LRG/26/2697/D7PUD00Z.jpg


Like many modern hunter gatherers the Aboriginal Australians tend to have very small hands, specifically, the tips of the last digits of the fingers are sharp and narrow. Compare thr hand bones of an Australian Aboriginal to an early modern human from Skhul cave:


http://i.imgur.com/apFmAGr.jpg


Compare that to the massive roundness, of an archaic human (Neanderthal):


http://www.handresearch.com/diagnostics/neanderthal-hand-shanidar-4.jpg

[Hadouken]

The average non-African has around 1.2% Neanderthal

it is around 2.7%

[Grab the Gauge]

it is around 2.7%

Nope. That's the combined maximum of Neanderthal and Denisovan admixture. No population has 2.7% Neanderthal DNA today.

http://i.imgur.com/9LF7e3p.jpg

[Hadouken]

I have the info from 23andme . the average user there is supposedly 2.7% neanderthal . I score 2.7% there

[Grab the Gauge]

I have the info from 23andme . the average user there is supposedly 2.7% neanderthal . I score 2.7% there

23andme recently revised its archaic DNA protocol to bring it up to par with the newer, complete data. People who used to get 2.9% now get 1.1 or 1.2%.

[Amud]

Their skulls don't match up to those of archaic hominids.

Australoid: http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/bilder/gl-australidsk.jpg

Erectus: https://boneclones.com/images/store-product/product-276-main-original-1415039500.jpg
http://www.perfettaletizia.it/archivio/infomazione/evoluzionismo/img/homo%20erectus%20di%20pechino-1.jpg


This Eskimo is more archaic than an Australoid
http://www.museumsyndicate.com/images/8/71904.jpg

[Poise n Pen]

Ancient australian fossils had much larger brains. Somehow they degenerated into pinheads with robust faces, probably genetic drift from very small populations I guess.

[Ultra]

Ancient australian fossils had much larger brains. Somehow they degenerated into pinheads with robust faces, probably genetic drift from very small populations I guess.
Economy model biological bipedal rape machines took over.

[Sockorer]

Yea, Australoids and the San Bushmen are living breathing subhumans. They should be studied intensively and then wiped out.

[Anglojew]

Yes, they're Homo Erectus admixed:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?117903-Are-Australoids-With-Denisovan-Admixture-Partial-Homo-Erectus-Survivors

[Peterski]

They might have up to 20% archaic admixture (from 3 different hominins), according to this discussion:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?97-Genetic-Genealogy-and-Ancient-DNA-in-the-News&p=173876&viewfull=1#post173876


The Australians are now reaching about 1/5 archaic!

Adding up:

Unknown hominin: shared with South Asians, Papuans, but not Europeans, Africans, or East Asians: 6-7%
Denisovan: shared with South Asians, Papuans, Europeans, East Asians and some Africans: 12%
Neanderthal: shared with all Out-of-Africa populations: 3-5%

Remember Wong et al.'s TreeMix with high coverage genomes? Some said the archaic edges were way too much then (compared to the usual ones with genotyped sets) but we shall see:

http://oi68.tinypic.com/k2bs7s.jpg

http://oi68.tinypic.com/k2bs7s.jpg

But these are extremely high estimates. It is more likely that they have up to 10% (or less) of archaic.

Here are GEDmatch results of a native Australian (but GEDmatch doesn't really show archaic ancestry):

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?196465-Ancient-Australian-DNA

[Peterski]

There is also a new (September 2016) study about Australian Aborigines:

Main Paper:

http://sci-hub.cc/http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v538/n7624/full/nature18299.html

Supplementary Info:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v538/n7624/extref/nature18299-s1.pdf

Extended Data:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v538/n7624/full/nature18299.html#extended-data

This study estimates Denisovan admixture in Australians at 4 to 5 percent:


By constraining Denisovan admixture as having occurred before the Aboriginal Australian–Papuan divergence, the SFS-based approach results in an admixture estimate of ~4.0% (95% CI 3.3–5.0%, Fig. 4, Supplementary Information section S07), similar to that obtained by D-statistics (~5%, Supplementary Information section S09). The SFS analyses further suggest that Denisovan/Australo-Papuan admixture took place ~44 kya (95% CI 31–50 kya, Supplementary Information section S07), a date that overlaps with an estimate from a more recent study54.

The SFS analysis also provides evidence for a primary Neanderthal admixture event (~2.3%, 95% CI 1.1–3.5%) taking place in the ancestral population of all non-Africans ~60 kya (95% CI 55–84 kya, Fig. 4, Supplementary Information section S07). Although we cannot estimate absolute dates of archaic admixture from the lengths of PDHs and putative Neanderthal-derived haplotypes (PNHs) in our samples, we can obtain a relative date. We found that, for putatively unadmixed Aboriginal Australians and HGDP-Papuans, the average PNH and PDH lengths are 33.8 kb and 37.4 kb, respectively (Extended Data Fig. 3b). These are significantly different from each other (P= 9.65×10−6 using a conservative sign test), and suggest that the time since Neanderthal admixture was about 11% greater than the time since Denisovan admixture, roughly in line with our SFS-based estimates for the Denisovan pulse (31–50 kya, Fig. 4) versus the primary pulse of Neanderthal admixture (55–84 kya).

The SFS analysis also indicates that the main Neanderthal pulse was followed by a further 1.1% (95% CI 0.2–2.7%, Fig. 4, Supplementary Information section S07) pulse of Neanderthal gene flow into the ancestors of Eurasians.

Finally, using our SFS- and haplotype-based approaches, we explored additional models involving complex structure among the archaic populations. We found suggestive evidence that the archaic contribution could be more complex than the model involving the discrete Denisovan and Neanderthal admixture pulses8,9 shown in Fig. 4 (Supplementary Information sections S07, S10).

4-5% Denisovan + 2-3% Neanderthal = 6-8% archaic already. And there could be more.

So I guess we can round this up and say that Australians have 1/10 archaic admixture.

At least 1/10, up to 1/5 (according to the most extremely high estimate given before).


probably genetic drift from very small populations I guess.

This paper actually says that 37,000 years ago there was probably a bottleneck in Australia.

Their population declined and only one group survived and re-populated the whole continent.

[Peterski]

Yes, they're Homo Erectus admixed

I agree. But not only, also with Neanderthals and Denisovans (unless Denisovans = Erectus).

They might be kinda "Castizos" - 80% Human and 20% Erectus+Denisovan+Neanderthal.

Or - more likely - around 90% Human and around 10% Erectus+Denisovan+Neanderthal.

Of course it was Late Erectus, like NG6 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NG_6

NG6 was a Homo Erectus who lived in what is now Indonesia 50,000 - 27,000 years ago:


NG 6 is the fossilized upper cranium of the species Homo Erectus. It was discovered in Ngandong, Indonesia by C. ter Haar and GHR von Koenigswald in 1931-1933. Its characteristics include a slightly larger braincase than other Erectus samples and a fairly recent age of 50,000 - 27,000 years.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65tkjZRG2V0

[Peterski]

Here are GEDmatch results of a native Australian (but GEDmatch doesn't really show archaic ancestry):

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?196465-Ancient-Australian-DNA

In MDLP K23b calculator he scores:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent

1 Australoid 51.38
2 Melano_Polynesian 39.18
3 South_Indian 4.35
4 South_East_Asian 2.58
5 Archaic_Human 1.86
6 Archaic_African 0.65

This proably means that he had some "extra" archaic over the norm.

Because the "norm" is already included within admixtures # 1 - 4.

[Purohit ji]

How denisovan looked? Any idea

[randomguy1235]

No, because they have more Homo Sapiens ancestry, so they're not "Archaic humans"

but they have considerable Archaic hominid(Denisovan) genes

Ergo more archaic hominid compared to most Eurasian populations.

[Grab the Gauge]

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v538/n7624/full/nature18299.html#extended-data

This study estimates Denisovan admixture in Australians at 4 to 5 percent:




Aboriginal Australians do not have more than 2% admixture from any archaic human. This study suggests this level of admixture was accreted tens of thousands of years ago. Aboriginal Australians are 1.5% Neanderthal and 0.800% Denisovan. We have fossils from the Upper Paleolithic that were 8% Neanderthal (Oase 1). Oase 1 actually has a predominance of physical Neanderthal traits, more so than any modern human including the 90,000 year old Skhul-Qafzeh series. He is the most archaic admixed specimen ever sequenced and had a Neanderthal great grandfather. This is something that isn't possible in the year 2016.

[Grab the Gauge]

How denisovan looked? Any idea

No Denisovan skulls have ever been found, only teeth and distal appendages. However, it was recently revealed that the mitochondrial ancestry of the Sima de los Huesos people of Spain was Denisovan. Their Y-DNA was Neanderthal. They had previously been given the meaningless "Homo Heidelbergensis" classification based on taxonomy.

Later anatomical analysis classified them as early Neanderthals. It seems that, in the facial aspect, they are indeed Neanderthal, but the braincase is completely unlike that of Neanderthals. In Sima de los Huesos 5, the most recognizable of the series, the maximum height of the cranial vault occurs high up on the skull -- this is the same morphology that is seen in many modern humans. It has very prominent mastoids -- this is, again, a modern human trait. The skull also has a saggital keel. This feature is sometimes found in Aboriginal Australians. It's not reckless to assume that Denisovans may have had saggital keels and that their braincases were very much unlike the Neanderthals and most other archaic humans, and more similar to that of early modern humans, such as Cro Magnon man.

360 view of Sima de los Huesos skull:

http://www.dlt.ncssm.edu/tiger/360views/Hominid_Skull-H_heidelbergensis_Atapuerca-5_1200x900/index.html

Compare the back of the skull to Cro Magnon 1:

http://www.dlt.ncssm.edu/tiger/360views/Hominid_Skull-Homo_sapiens_Cro-Magnon_1-OldMan_1200x900/index.html


Sima de los Huesos 5 irrelevant facial pics:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_TpJiMSYqyA/VLbuuLcNxVI/AAAAAAAAS8U/Yr6iL7jhH3g/s1600/resizer.jpg


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c6/Atapuerca_skull-5.png/220px-Atapuerca_skull-5.png


It is interesting to note that we know more about what Denisovans behaved like than what they looked like. They are said to have invented the needle, and made bracelets from green chlorite rock using high speed drills. It could be just as likely that Neanderthals did that, but Denisovans have been given credit. Regardless, it is now certain that it was either one of the archaic species, and not early modern humans.

[Amud]

No Denisovan skulls have ever been found, only teeth and distal appendages. However, it was recently revealed that the mitochondrial ancestry of the Sima de los Huesos people of Spain was Denisovan. Their Y-DNA was Neanderthal. They had previously been given the meaningless "Homo Heidelbergensis" classification based on taxonomy.

Later anatomical analysis classified them as early Neanderthals. It seems that, in the facial aspect, they are indeed Neanderthal, but the braincase is completely unlike that of Neanderthals. In Sima de los Huesos 5, the most recognizable of the series, the maximum height of the cranial vault occurs high up on the skull -- this is the same morphology that is seen in many modern humans. It has very prominent mastoids -- this is, again, a modern human trait. The skull also has a saggital keel. This feature is sometimes found in Aboriginal Australians. It's not reckless to assume that Denisovans may have had saggital keels and that their braincases were very much unlike the Neanderthals and most other archaic humans, and more similar to that of early modern humans, such as Cro Magnon man.

360 view of Sima de los Huesos skull:

http://www.dlt.ncssm.edu/tiger/360views/Hominid_Skull-H_heidelbergensis_Atapuerca-5_1200x900/index.html

Compare the back of the skull to Cro Magnon 1:

http://www.dlt.ncssm.edu/tiger/360views/Hominid_Skull-Homo_sapiens_Cro-Magnon_1-OldMan_1200x900/index.html


Sima de los Huesos 5 irrelevant facial pics:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_TpJiMSYqyA/VLbuuLcNxVI/AAAAAAAAS8U/Yr6iL7jhH3g/s1600/resizer.jpg


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c6/Atapuerca_skull-5.png/220px-Atapuerca_skull-5.png


What do you think is going on with the cranial sutures?

[Peterski]

How denisovan looked? Any idea

No because we only have a finger bone. And DNA was extracted from that finger.

So we know how Denisovan fingers looked like, if this helps. And their teeth also.

[Grab the Gauge]

What do you think is going on with the cranial sutures?

I was wondering the same thing. They appear to be broken to me, as if fracturing had occurred along the lines of the sutures. It doesn't seem improbable given the enormous internal pressure the vault is subjected to for over 100,000 years. This document would seem to confirm that they are fractured:


The new cranium was recovered in many pieces during the 2001 and 2002 field seasons [Fig. S1 A and B and Movie S1; for fragments and labels, see Materials and Methods], and has been reconstructed during the subsequent years. As it happens with the other fossils from this site, the pieces show different degrees of breakage, but are in very good state of preservation, allowing accurate reconstructions, for example, see Cranium 5 (6). It is especially important to point out that no postmortem deformation has been found in either this particular specimen, nor in any other fossils of this collection (8).


http://www.pnas.org/content/106/16/6573.full

[Peterski]

However, it was recently revealed that the mitochondrial ancestry of the Sima de los Huesos people of Spain was Denisovan. They had previously been given the meaningless "Homo Heidelbergensis" classification

No it was not.

Sima de Los Huesos was Heidelbergensis, ancestral to both Neanderthals and Denisovans:

http://sci-hub.io/10.1038/nature17405

http://www.nature.com/news/oldest-ancient-human-dna-details-dawn-of-neanderthals-1.19557?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureNews

But Denisovans could be some kinds of Erectus-Heidelbergensis hybrids.

[TheMadScientist]

Maybe very diluted gigantopithecus?hehe
http://thumbs.media.smithsonianmag.com//filer/2e/da/2eda41b7-6c51-497f-8efe-6bc3c98d1a58/how-gigantopithecus-became-extinct-768-1024.jpg__800x600_q85_crop_subject_location-292,387.jpg

[Peterski]

Aboriginal Australians do not have more than 2% admixture from any archaic human.

They do. They have 6-10% up to 20% of archaic admixture from 2 or 3 different archaic human species.


We have fossils from the Upper Paleolithic that were 8% Neanderthal (Oase 1).

But Oase 1 was 0% Denisovan and 0% "unknown hominin" (likely Erectus), unlike modern Australians.


He is the most archaic admixed specimen ever sequenced and had a Neanderthal great grandfather.

More likely a Neanderthal great-great-grandmother, who was kidnapped by modern humans.

Oase 1 is on GEDmatch by the way, I uploaded him (kit number T732095).


This is something that isn't possible in the year 2016.

Ah yeah, once again the well-known "current year" narrative!

It is just as possible in 2016 AD as it was back in 22016 BC.

You just need to look carefully for archaic-admixed mates.

[Grab the Gauge]

No it was not.

Sima de Los Huesos was Heidelbergensis, ancestral to both Neanderthals and Denisovans:

http://sci-hub.io/10.1038/nature17405

http://www.nature.com/news/oldest-ancient-human-dna-details-dawn-of-neanderthals-1.19557?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureNews

But Denisovans could be some kinds of Erectus-Heidelbergensis hybrids.

As usual Litvin you are completely wrong and not up to date with the facts. Sima de los Huesos did indeed have a Denisovsn mitochondrial lineage:


In 2015, the study of nuclear DNA samples from three caves Sima de los Huesos revealed that was found to be "distantly related to the mitochondrial DNA of Denisovans rather than to that of Neanderthals."[67]

Their nuclear DNA was indeed Neanderthal:



While the Sima de los Huesos hominins share some derived morphological features with Neanderthals, the mitochondrial genome retrieved from one individual from Sima de los Huesos is more closely related to the mitochondrial DNA of Denisovans than to that of Neanderthals2. However, since the mitochondrial DNA does not reveal the full picture of relationships among populations, we have investigated DNA preservation in several individuals found at Sima de los Huesos. Here we recover nuclear DNA sequences from two specimens, which show that the Sima de los Huesos hominins were related to Neanderthals rather than to Denisovans, indicating that the population divergence between Neanderthals and Denisovans predates 430,000 years ago

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v531/n7595/full/nature17405.html


Sima de los Huesos humans were Neanderthals:


http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/anthropology/sima-de-los-huesos-hominins-early-neanderthals-03703.html

[TheMadScientist]

You're at a bar
This guy slaps your girls ass
http://www.dlt.ncssm.edu/tiger/360views/Hominid_Skull-A_afarensis-Lucy_1200x900/index.html
What do you do?

[Peterski]

As usual Litvin you are completely wrong and not up to date with the facts. Sima de los Huesos did indeed have a Denisovsn mitochondrial lineage

No GTG... :picard1:

It is like saying that I0806 who lived around 2431-2150 BC had Litvin's Y-chromosomal lineage... :picard1:

Obviously he could not have Litvin's haplogroup because he lived long before me, you silly!

I did not travel back in time (so far).

It was Denisovan who had Heidelbergensis mtDNA, not Heidelbergensis who had Denisovan mtDNA. Sima de los Huesos could have Denisovan mtDNA, because he lived 400,000 years before the Denisovan.

[Grab the Gauge]

They do. They have 6-10% up to 20% of archaic admixture from 2 or 3 different archaic human species.

This statement is completely and utterly wrong. There is zero evidencr that Aboriginal Australians have admixture from a third species.




But Oase 1 was 0% Denisovan and 0% "unknown hominin" (likely Erectus), unlike modern Australians.

Again, you are wrong.




More likely a Neanderthal great-great-grandmother, who was kidnapped by modern humans.

Again, wrong. Oase 1 had no Neanderthal MTDNA. He could not have inherited DNA from a Neanderthal. Which is usually the case with Neanderthals as no one ever gets their women. :thumb001:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/06/150622-neanderthal-dna-jawbone-ancestor-anthropology/


Ancient Man Had Neanderthal Great-Great Grandfather


Analysis of the jawbone of a man who lived about 40,000 years ago reveals the closest direct descendant of a Neanderthal who mated with a modern human.











Ah yeah, once again the well-known "current year" narrative!

It is just as possible in 2016 AD as it was back in 22016 BC.

You just need to look carefully for archaic-admixed mates.

It is not in fact possible to have 8% Neanderthal or Denisovsn admixture in 2016. It gets diluted with each passing generation and was never higher than 8%, even in the early Upper Paleolithic.

[Peterski]

Sima de los Huesos humans were Neanderthals

Nope. They were not Neanderthals. Neanderthals only later evolved from them.

If anything you can call them Proto-Neanderthals. But Homo Heidelbergensis is correct.


Ancient Man Had Neanderthal Great-Great Grandfather

He had Neanderthal great-great-grandparent. Whether a male or a female we don't know.

I think it must have been a woman because Neanderthal women were so sexy.

[Grab the Gauge]

No GTG... :picard1:

It is like saying that I0806 who lived around 2431-2150 BC had Litvin's Y-chromosomal lineage... :picard1:

Obviously he could not have Litvin's haplogroup because he lived long before me, you silly!

I did not travel back in time (so far).

It was Denisovan who had Heidelbergensis mtDNA, not Heidelbergensis who had Denisovan mtDNA. Sima de los Huesos could have Denisovan mtDNA, because he lived 400,000 years before the Denisovan.

No skull classified as Heidelbergensis (which isn't even considered a valid taxon anymore) has ever yielded a DNA sample. Sima de los Huesos was a Neanderthal not a Heidelbergensis. There is no such thing as Homo Heidelbergensis. Time for you get off the computer and go cry yourself to sleep.

[Peterski]

It is not in fact possible to have 8% Neanderthal or Denisovsn admixture in 2016. It gets diluted with each passing generation and was never higher than 8%, even in the early Upper Paleolithic.

I said 8% archaic, not 8% Neanderthal.

If you marry a Papuan woman, your children with her will have 8% archaic.

Of course not all of it will be Neanderthal.

[Peterski]

Sima de los Huesos was a Neanderthal not a Heidelbergensis.

He lived before true Neanderthals evolved. His traits were not "Classical Neanderthal" traits.

He was ancestral to Neanderthals, but he was not one of them.

Just like the first Out-of-Africa man was ancestral to White Caucasoids, but he was not one of us.

[Grab the Gauge]

Nope. They were not Neanderthals. Neanderthals only later evolved from them.

If anything you can call them Proto-Neanderthals. But Homo Heidelbergensis is correct.

Again, you are wrong. Homo Heidelbergensis is not correct. There is genetic proof that Sima de los Huesos 5 are Neanderthals.




He had Neanderthal great-great-grandparent. Whether a male or a female we don't know.

I think it must have been a woman because Neanderthal women were so sexy.

We know for a fact that it was a grandfather because Oase 1 is a male and he has no Neanderthal X DNA. Archaic admixture in to modern humans from Neanderthals and Denisovans was male-mediated.

[Grab the Gauge]

He lived before true Neanderthals evolved. His traits were not "Classical Neanderthal" traits.


Facially speaking, and in the anterior vault, Sima de los Huesos were indeed classical Neanderthals, just like the ones that existed 65,000 years ago:

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/344/6190/1358


Seventeen Middle Pleistocene crania from the Sima de los Huesos site (Atapuerca, Spain) are analyzed, including seven new specimens. This sample makes it possible to thoroughly characterize a Middle Pleistocene hominin paleodeme and to address hypotheses about the origin and evolution of the Neandertals. Using a variety of techniques, the hominin-bearing layer could be reassigned to a period around 430,000 years ago. The sample shows a consistent morphological pattern with derived Neandertal features present in the face and anterior vault, many of which are related to the masticatory apparatus. This suggests that facial modification was the first step in the evolution of the Neandertal lineage, pointing to a mosaic pattern of evolution, with different anatomical and functional modules evolving at different rates.





He was ancestral to Neanderthals, but he was not one of them.

Just like the first Out-of-Africa man was ancestral to White Caucasoids, but he was not one of us.

Completely wrong. He was indeed a Neanderthal with Denisovan admixture. His nuclear DNA is identical to Neanderthals and he is now classified as a Neanderthal:


Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from a 400,000-year-old femur has been sequenced, the oldest hominin mtDNA recovered as of 2013. The mtDNA was found to be closer to the mtDNA from Denisova hominins than to the mtDNA from Neanderthals.[5]

In 2016 nuclear DNA analysis determined the Sima hominins are Neanderthals and not Denisova hominins and the divergence between Neanderthals and Denisovans predates 430,000 years ago.[6][7]

[Peterski]

There is zero evidence that Aboriginal Australians have admixture from a third species.

You clearly have not read the July 2016 paper which says that there is such evidence:

http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v48/n9/full/ng.3621.html

These badass Negritos from the Andaman Islands have more Neanderthal than we do!:


"Both Andamanese (JAR and ONG) populations have a significant amount of Neanderthal introgression (Supplementary Figure 12). The amount is slightly higher than in Europeans, and comparable with other Indian populations. Papuan (PAP) has the highest amount of Neanderthal introgression "Compared to MAD population (Mandenka, Africa), only PAP show admixture with Denisova (...) compared to Europeans, all Asian populations share significantly more Denisova ancestry"

But to the point - here is about the third species, an "unknown hominin":


"although AND have shared ancestry with other OOA populations, they (along with other Indian populations, Papuan [PAP], and Aboriginal Australians [AUS]) have ~2-3% fewer African alleles compared to Europeans and East Asians. How? To resolve this a new hominin is posited. This phenomenon can only be explained by a non-modern human population (hominin) introgression in Andamanese (including Indian) which is still unknown (it is neither Neanderthal nor Denisova"

And Australians also have admixture from that "unknown hominin":


"AUS have a dearth of African ancestry and that the amount is higher (~6-7%) than for Andamanese"

They explain away this dearth of African ancestry in Australians by:


"higher amount of admixture from the unknown hominin population"

BTW, Africans also have archaic admixtures, from different hominins:

"Genetic evidence for archaic admixture in Africa" - http://www.pnas.org/content/108/37/15123.full

"Archaic introgression in Central Africa" - http://gutengroup.mcb.arizona.edu/Publications/Hsieh2016b.pdf

"Interbreeding with Archaic Humans in Africa" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvoiPUHfOXI

African archaic admixture was probably from hominins similar to Nigerian Iwo Eleru specimen:

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-14947363

Those archaic "Iwo Elerians" lived in Central Africa even as recently as 13,000 years ago!:


"The skull has got a much more primitive appearance, even though it is only 13,000 years old," said Chris Stringer, from London's Natural History Museum, who was part of the team of researchers.

The main conclusion from all of these studies is, that race is a social construct.

[Grab the Gauge]

You clearly have not read the July 2016 paper which says that there is such evidence:

http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v48/n9/full/ng.3621.html

These badass Negritos from the Andaman Islands have more Neanderthal than we do!

This is nothing new because it has been known that Europeans and all west Eurasians have less Neanderthal admixture than East Eurasisans and Oceanic people. Furthermore, Papuans do not have the highest Neanderthal introgression and their introgression rate is no higher than East Asians. The highest Neanderthal introgression is found in Eskimos and Chippewyan Amerindians, not Oceanic people and not Papuans:


http://i.imgur.com/9LF7e3p.png




But to the point - here is about the third species, an "unknown hominin":

Andamese islanders are not aboriginal Australians.




And Australians also have admixture from that "unknown hominin":

Aboriginal Australians have zero admixture from that "unknown hominim".








BTW, Africans also have archaic admixtures, from different hominins:

"Genetic evidence for archaic admixture in Africa" - http://www.pnas.org/content/108/37/15123.full

"Archaic introgression in Central Africa" - http://gutengroup.mcb.arizona.edu/Publications/Hsieh2016b.pdf

"Interbreeding with Archaic Humans in Africa" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvoiPUHfOXI

African archaic admixture was probably from hominins similar to Nigerian Iwo Eleru specimen:

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-14947363

This is completely irrelevant to anything in this topic.

[Peterski]

We know for a fact that it was a grandfather because Oase 1 is a male and he has no Neanderthal X DNA. Archaic admixture in to modern humans from Neanderthals and Denisovans was male-mediated.

He has no Neanderthal Y-DNA either! And no Neanderthal mtDNA.

Here is the family tree of Oase1 (try to find the Neanderthal):

https://aaronjstutz.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/oase-1-family-tree-low-res.jpg

https://aaronjstutz.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/oase-1-family-tree-low-res.jpg

[Grab the Gauge]

Chipewyan: 1.633 Neanderthal, 0.049 Denisovan

Papuan:1.596 Neanderthal, 1.123 Denisovan

[Peterski]

That estimate is too low.

They are 4-5% Denisovan, as per the most recent study (from September 2016).

And 2-3% Neanderthal.

===============

Modern Europeans have ca. 2% of Neanderthal (Paleolithic & Mesolithic Europeans had more, but later "Basal Eurasian" admixture from Arabia via the Middle East and Anatolia lowered our Neanderthal %):

https://hms.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/assets/News/2016/images/may/NeanderthalAncestry.jpg

https://hms.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/assets/News/2016/images/may/NeanderthalAncestry.jpg

[Grab the Gauge]

He has no Neanderthal Y-DNA either!


Totally irrelevant. If he has no admixture on the X chromosome, the admixture was inherited from a Neanderthal grandfather.

[Grab the Gauge]

That estimate is too low.

They are 4-5% Denisovan, as per the most recent study (from September 2016).

And 2-3% Neanderthal.

Yet again, I find myself repeating myself. That study did not find 4-5% Denisovan admixture in modern Papuans. It is the baseline estimate for the maximum contribution that was inherited over 40,000 years ago. It means the ancestors of Papuans had that much admixture 40,000 years ago. Today it has declined to less than 2%. The chart I posted is from 2016.

[Peterski]

Today it has declined to less than 2%.

No evidence that it did.

In Europe Neanderthal ancestry declined but mostly because people with a lot of "Basal Eurasian" (and those "Basal Eurasians" - unlike "Crown Eurasians" - initially stayed in Arabia after the Out-of-Africa, and did not mix with Neanderthals) have immigrated to Europe from the Early Neolithic onwards.

In fact they are still coming - inside their Basal Eurasian boats - as we are talking now.

[Grab the Gauge]

No evidence that it did.

Yes it has indeed, that evidence is located in none other than the very genes of the modern Papuans themselves. Archaic admixture decreased everywhere, from the peak 8-10% in Oase 1, to the 2-3% in Kostenki and Ust-Ishim, to the .9-1% in modern West Eurasians. You don't just hold on to introgression forever.

[Peterski]

to the .9-1% in modern West Eurasians. You don't just hold on to introgression forever.

Weren't you the one who claimed that all of Non-African Y-DNA is descended from Neanderthals who raped human women? :lol: David Reich says that Neanderthal ancestry in modern Europeans is 2%, not 1%.

You are quoting some very minimalistic estimates.

There is no consensus on these percentages.

[Peterski]

GTG,


In 2016 nuclear DNA analysis determined the Sima hominins are Neanderthals and not Denisova hominins and the divergence between Neanderthals and Denisovans predates 430,000 years ago.[6][7]

OK. But they should be called Proto-Neanderthals, or Early Neanderthals.

[Grab the Gauge]

Weren't you the one who claimed that all of Non-African Y-DNA is descended from Neanderthals who raped human women? :lol: David Reich says that Neanderthal ancestry in modern Europeans is 2%, not 1%.

Not a single modern European has 2% Neanderthal DNA. 2% is what Ust-Ishim had. 2% is Upper Paleolithic level admixture. No modern European even scores above 1.3%, excluding the Saami.


The scientists also found that Ust'-Ishim man had pieces of Neanderthal DNA in his genome, making up a total of about 2.3 percent.

http://www.history.com/news/scientists-reconstruct-45000-year-old-human-genome

http://i.imgur.com/9LF7e3p.jpg

[Grab the Gauge]

GTG,



OK. But they should be called Proto-Neanderthals, or Early Neanderthals.

They're Neanderthals not "proto Neanderthals". The only reason they are not fully Neanderthal in the cranial vault is because they are Denisovan admixed. 100% classical Neanderthal vault forms go back over 300,000 years in Europe (Reilingen skull).

[Peterski]

Not a single modern European has 2% Neanderthal DNA. 2% is what Ust-Ishim had.

Ust-Ishim was not even European (nether geographically, nor genetically).


2% is Upper Paleolithic level admixture.

Fu 2016 ("The Genetic History of Ice Age Europe") has around 4%, not 2% (see Figure 2.):

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301742169_The_genetic_history_of_Ice_Age_Europe

http://sci-hub.cc/http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v534/n7606/full/nature17993.html


No modern European even scores above 1.3%, excluding the Saami.

According to Fu 2016, the average for modern Europeans is about 2% (again, Figure 2.).

[Peterski]

Many of Apricity members have a lot of Neanderthal admixture, more than average.

[Grab the Gauge]

:
Ust-Ishim was not even European (nether geographically, nor genetically).



Fu 2016 ("The Genetic History of Ice Age Europe") has around 4%, not 2% (see Figure 2.):

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301742169_The_genetic_history_of_Ice_Age_Europe

http://sci-hub.cc/http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v534/n7606/full/nature17993.html



According to Fu 2016, the average for modern Europeans is about 2% (again, Figure 2.).

Litvin can't read. :rolleyes:


Eurasians


The least squares fit (grey) excludes
the data from Oase1 (an outlier with recent Neanderthal ancestry) and
three present-day European populations (known to have less Neanderthal
ancestry than east Asians).


I'll say it again: no modern European population has 2% Neanderthal admixture.

[Peterski]

100% classical Neanderthal vault forms go back over 300,000 years in Europe (Reilingen skull).

But that was just one skull. One white person =/= Aryan population, as they say.

Others were still more archaic at that time, he was the "pioneer" of evolution.

"Classical Neanderthal in a crowd of Heidelbergensis":

https://mediadiversityuk.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/18qpujkoymrksjpg.jpg

[Grab the Gauge]

Many of Apricity members have a lot of Neanderthal admixture, more than average.

Only on the old 23andme and other DNA site protocols, which have been recently revised and now bill people substantially lower. Your shitty 23andme kit was a waste of money.

[Peterski]

Only on the old 23andme and other DNA site protocols, which have been recently revised and now bill people substantially lower.

Autism spectrum was inherited from Neanderthals. And many of Apricity members have it.

So my conclusion is, that many of Apricity members have elevated Neanderthal ancestry.

The internet is a place where self-selection for elevated Neanderthal ancestry takes place.


Your shitty 23andme kit was a waste of money.

Fortunately I am a customer of FTDNA, not 23andme.

[Grab the Gauge]

But that was just one skull. One white person =/= Aryan population, as they say.

Others were still more archaic at that time, he was the "pioneer" of evolution.

Wrong as usual.


"Classical Neanderthal in a crowd of Heidelbergensis":

https://mediadiversityuk.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/18qpujkoymrksjpg.jpg

More like:

http://1u88jj3r4db2x4txp44yqfj1.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/dukenukemforever.jpg?w=558

There was no such thing as a Heidelbergensis species. The term "Homo Heidelbergensis" isn't even used by anthropologists anymore.

[Grab the Gauge]

Autism spectrum was inherited from Neanderthals. And many of Apricity members have it.

Are you trying to break a world record and receive the "most incorrect statements made in an hour" award? Yes, I believe you are.

Neanderthals didn't have autism. Autism developed long after they were gone.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25443-why-we-get-autism-but-our-neanderthal-cousins-didnt/







Fortunately I am a customer of FTDNA, not 23andme.

You still wasted your money. All of the genetics-related toys you like to play with on the internet (like GEDmatch) are also a useless waste of time.

[Peterski]

Anyway, prehistoric Earth was cool, literally like LOTR universum:

http://metro.co.uk/2013/11/20/middle-earth-on-planet-earth-prehistoric-human-interbreeding-created-lord-of-the-rings-world-4194369/


A prehistoric ‘Lord of the Rings-type world’ once existed on Earth with a number of different human species interbreeding and populating the globe at the same time, it has been claimed. Extensive interbreeding between members of ancient human-like groups is thought to have produced a number of different sub-species living across Europe and Asia between 30,000 and 50,000 years ago. Scientists say new genome sequences from two extinct human relatives – Neanderthals and Denisovans – suggest these archaic groups bred with anatomically-modern humans, and each other, more extensively than previously thought.

http://www.paperspencils.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/10-races.jpg

I wonder if "Hobbits" also participated in that orgy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_muJKVLx3Y

[Peterski]

And if you go to Australia, you can still feel this LOTR-like climate there.

In Papua New Guinea as well:

"Michael Rockefeller WAS eaten by cannibals in New Guinea confirms new documentary":

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2885704/Michael-Rockefeller-eaten-cannibals-New-Guinea-confirms-new-documentary.html

"Brit and girlfriend kidnapped, stripped, beaten and tortured by jungle tribe":

https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/112708/brit-and-girlfriend-kidnapped-stripped-beaten-and-tortured-by-jungle-tribe/

"Eating human brains helped Papua New Guinea tribe resist disease, research shows":

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jun/10/brains-helped-papua-new-guinea-tribe


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dY4V3UUY95A

[Grab the Gauge]

Human flesh is delicious and very good for you. This is not restricted to any one race or ethnicity.

[Dominicanese]

Yea, Australoids and the San Bushmen are living breathing subhumans. They should be studied intensively and then wiped out.

good god

you must have been raised on sour milk bro, the fuck

[Hadouken]

Human flesh is delicious and very good for you. This is not restricted to any one race or ethnicity.

humour/jokes are good and I like many of your posts but there should be a line you know ....

[Amud]

humour/jokes are good and I like many of your posts but there should be a line you know ....


I think he might be serious...

[Hadouken]

I think he might be serious...

lets hope he is not

[Charles Bronson]

Human flesh is delicious and very good for you. This is not restricted to any one race or ethnicity.


LMAO. What is with stem cells?

[Dominicanese]

BTW

i highly douht these small percentages can affect a phenotype so (1.5% denosavon or whatever its called or calculed)

their over 95%+ Homo Sapien

i have well over 9% Amerindian in me, yet it doesn't show in my pheno

so Australoids cannot show any non-homo sapien phenos

to me, they are just very old humans that had remained the same due to founding effect and or environment that is practically the same as Africa's

[Norka]

Brother to Cro-Magnon

[Rethel]

I voted no, becasue the "Fossils" were normal races of man, not some
pre-human version, exactly the same as Australoaboriginals are. They
are the greatest proof, that Fossils arnt what they are claimed to be..

[Milo]

They have a range of phenotypes, and some are rather progressive looking.

[Grab the Gauge]

BTW

i highly douht these small percentages can affect a phenotype so (1.5% denosavon or whatever its called or calculed)

their over 95%+ Homo Sapien

i have well over 9% Amerindian in me, yet it doesn't show in my pheno

so Australoids cannot show any non-homo sapien phenos

to me, they are just very old humans that had remained the same due to founding effect and or environment that is practically the same as Africa's

Well, you are completely wrong about that. Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA is affecting phenotype in us all:


Inuit body fat distribution and waistline is Denisovan:


phenotypes are BMI-adjusted waist circumference, waist-hip ratio and BMI-adjusted waist-hip ratio


A recent study conducted the first genome-wide scan for selection in Inuit from Greenland using SNP chip data. Here, we report that selection in the region with the second most extreme signal of positive selection in Greenlandic Inuit favored a deeply divergent haplotype that is closely related to the sequence in the Denisovan genome, and was likely introgressed from an archaic population. The region contains two genes, WARS2 and TBX15, and has previously been associated with adipose tissue differentiation and body-fat distribution in humans. We show that the adaptively introgressed allele has been under selection in a much larger geographic region than just Greenland. Furthermore, it is associated with changes in expression of WARS2 and TBX15 in multiple tissues including the adrenal gland and subcutaneous adipose tissue, and with regional DNA methylation changes in TBX15.

http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/10/27/033928

http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/10/27/033928.full.pdf


I don't have the paper right now but the horizontal nasal form of non-Africans came from Neanderthals. And a whole host of other features. Just because no one looks exactly like a Neanderthal doesn't mean this DNA isn't doing extraordinary things.

[Amud]

Well, you are completely wrong about that. Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA is affecting phenotype in us all:


Inuit body fat distribution and waistline is Denisovan:





http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/10/27/033928

http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/10/27/033928.full.pdf


I don't have the paper right now but the horizontal nasal form of non-Africans came from Neanderthals. And a whole host of other features. Just because no one looks exactly like a Neanderthal doesn't mean this DNA isn't doing extraordinary things.

It seems to me like just about every Neanderthal feature can be found in some modern humans, however rare (certain hard-to-see cranial landmarks might be an exception, but I'm not sure on that). If the genetic recombination turned out just right, modern human populations might be able to produce a "Neanderthal".

[Aldaris]

WOW

Proof of evolution right there.

[Rethel]

Proof of evolution right there.

:picard1:

[Aldaris]

:picard1:

I was just joking, obviously.

[Rethel]

I was just joking, obviously.

Evolutionists usually are saying it seriously.

[Dominicanese]

Now that we'er done flopping our dicks

maybe you guys should check this out and see what you make of it, it is true that early humans (at least in the americas) poceesed some sort of australo facial features but idk (or oceanic migrations)

anyways here


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSsdQ00EkQE

[Amud]

Now that we'er done flopping our dicks

maybe you guys should check this out and see what you make of it, it is true that early humans (at least in the americas) poceesed some sort of australo facial features but idk (or oceanic migrations)

anyways here


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSsdQ00EkQE

People always say weird things, like the features of the Fuegians were caused by Australoid admixture, or that Paleo-Indians were Australoid. This is not true. No Amerindians have ever had anything to do with Australoids.


Don't they look just like Aborigines?

http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/Misc/Ancient_American_affinities/not_2.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/7e/48/87/7e4887910dc407b55ac09da86c7cffd1.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/70/77/a5/7077a5779b05f6cc9ea874275bb2fb42.jpg
http://web.stanford.edu/~siegelr/chile/fuegians/IMG_3699%20fuegian%20from%20post%20card%205-11-2010%20chile.jpg
http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/Misc/Americas/images/Penon_Woman_skull.jpg

[Lucas]

People always say weird things, like the features of the Fuegians were caused by Australoid admixture, or that Paleo-Indians were Australoid. This is not true. No Amerindians have ever had anything to do with Australoids.



http://www.pnas.org/content/102/51/18309.full


Cranial morphology of early Americans from Lagoa Santa, Brazil: Implications for the settlement of the New World

Comparative morphological studies of the earliest human skeletons of the New World have shown that, whereas late prehistoric, recent, and present Native Americans tend to exhibit a cranial morphology similar to late and modern Northern Asians (short and wide neurocrania; high, orthognatic and broad faces; and relatively high and narrow orbits and noses), the earliest South Americans tend to be more similar to present Australians, Melanesians, and Sub-Saharan Africans (narrow and long neurocrania; prognatic, low faces; and relatively low and broad orbits and noses). However, most of the previous studies of early American human remains were based on small cranial samples. Herein we compare the largest sample of early American skulls ever studied (81 skulls of the Lagoa Santa region) with worldwide data sets representing global morphological variation in humans, through three different multivariate analyses. The results obtained from all multivariate analyses confirm a close morphological affinity between SouthAmerican Paleoindians and extant Australo-Melanesians groups, supporting the hypothesis that two distinct biological populations could have colonized the New World in the Pleistocene/Holocene transition.

Graphs showing the morphological affinities of the samples as seen through the first two principal coordinates (PCo1 and PCo2) extracted from matrices when heritability was equal to 0.55. The percentages accompanying each axis represent the amount of the original variance explained by each axis. (A) Analysis of males, with size and shape considered. (B) Analysis of males with size effect corrected. (C) Analysis of females, with size and shape considered. (D) Analysis of females with size effect corrected. Only the 55 best preserved skulls were included.
http://www.pnas.org/content/102/51/18309/F2.large.jpg

Look how close to Australians on most PCA the Lagoa Santa skulls are... An how distant from Amerindians.

Another question if Lagoa Santa people left any genetic impact among modern Amerindians (at least from Brazil). But certainly in earliest times Australo-like guys exist in South America... PCA doesn't lie:)

[Dominicanese]

People always say weird things, like the features of the Fuegians were caused by Australoid admixture, or that Paleo-Indians were Australoid. This is not true. No Amerindians have ever had anything to do with Australoids.


Don't they look just like Aborigines?


Me, honestly, never did think of any possible Australoid in Amerindians, and if they somehow do

it is very little, however

why do some Amerindians in the South have a skull shape that is unlike the Mongoloid ones?

do you think, it is because of archaic

if these so called early Mongoloids looked different than the one's today, then where the hell did the neo-mongoloid camefrom, unless it is from founding effect

Amerindians are too diverse, but they all look Asian as fuck to me

[Roy]

They look so, but apparently they're fully modern in their anatomy according to anthropological consensus. Some of their features could be explained by long isolation and / or alternatively non-Homo Sapiens admixtures that is in small proportion there.

[Roy]

http://www.pnas.org/content/102/51/18309.full



Graphs showing the morphological affinities of the samples as seen through the first two principal coordinates (PCo1 and PCo2) extracted from matrices when heritability was equal to 0.55. The percentages accompanying each axis represent the amount of the original variance explained by each axis. (A) Analysis of males, with size and shape considered. (B) Analysis of males with size effect corrected. (C) Analysis of females, with size and shape considered. (D) Analysis of females with size effect corrected. Only the 55 best preserved skulls were included.
http://www.pnas.org/content/102/51/18309/F2.large.jpg

Look how close to Australians on most PCA the Lagoa Santa skulls are... An how distant from Amerindians.

Another question if Lagoa Santa people left any genetic impact among modern Amerindians (at least from Brazil). But certainly in earliest times Australo-like guys exist in South America... PCA doesn't lie:)

The famous Luzia is the most famous Amerindian Australoid.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/IMG_Montagem_wiki_sharpen.png

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luzia_Woman

[JeanBaMac]

I think that ancestral Eurasians looked like Abos or something similar, due to the combination of East African and Neanderthal genes. Caucasoid and Mongoloid races formed later, due to natural and sexual selection.
But genetically, the true living fossils are people from Middle East (and to a lesser extent North Africa) since they retained many genes of ancestral Eurasians. South Indians (Dravidian, Veddas) and certain Yemenis have somewhat Australoid features.

[JeanBaMac]

People always say weird things, like the features of the Fuegians were caused by Australoid admixture, or that Paleo-Indians were Australoid. This is not true. No Amerindians have ever had anything to do with Australoids.


Don't they look just like Aborigines?

http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/Misc/Ancient_American_affinities/not_2.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/7e/48/87/7e4887910dc407b55ac09da86c7cffd1.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/70/77/a5/7077a5779b05f6cc9ea874275bb2fb42.jpg
http://web.stanford.edu/~siegelr/chile/fuegians/IMG_3699%20fuegian%20from%20post%20card%205-11-2010%20chile.jpg
http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/Misc/Americas/images/Penon_Woman_skull.jpg

They looked like Asians.

[alpha]

http://www.pnas.org/content/102/51/18309.full



Graphs showing the morphological affinities of the samples as seen through the first two principal coordinates (PCo1 and PCo2) extracted from matrices when heritability was equal to 0.55. The percentages accompanying each axis represent the amount of the original variance explained by each axis. (A) Analysis of males, with size and shape considered. (B) Analysis of males with size effect corrected. (C) Analysis of females, with size and shape considered. (D) Analysis of females with size effect corrected. Only the 55 best preserved skulls were included.
http://www.pnas.org/content/102/51/18309/F2.large.jpg

Look how close to Australians on most PCA the Lagoa Santa skulls are... An how distant from Amerindians.

Another question if Lagoa Santa people left any genetic impact among modern Amerindians (at least from Brazil). But certainly in earliest times Australo-like guys exist in South America... PCA doesn't lie:)
idk about lagoa santa but the fuego-patagonians are simply amerindians and so are the pericues mummies who also have distinct morphologies compared to modern amerindians

[Dominicanese]

They looked like Asians.

they still do

[The Blade]

No but they do have more archaic human in them than Europeans, for instance.

[Rethel]

No but they do have more archaic human in them than Europeans, for instance.

They look like each other, what proofs, that
such thing like archaic people didnt exist, but
was a normal race, as Aboriginals still are.

Moreover, I think, that Mecca should be cancled.