Are Africans (SSAs and NAs) more human than the rest of modern humans?

[LoLeL]

More human due to lowest archaic admixture?

https://evolutionistx.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/picture-12.png

Archaic human admixture with modern humans (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaic_human_admixture_with_modern_humans)

[Heather Duval]

No. All races are human and I really do not understand this insecurity of all of you in wanting to be humans. There is nothing to be proud of in the human race. Humans are the most evil and sinful creatures on earth. Every night I pray for humanity, and sometimes I'm ashamed to be human.

[Petalpusher]

They very likely have other forms of archaic humans than Neanderthal

https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/34/10/2704/3988100

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep31791


NEW YORK, July 25 (Xinhua) -- Human ancestors living in Sub-Sahara Africa may have interbred with unkonwn "ghost" species of early hominins, a study on the evolutionary history of a salivary protein has indicated.

"This unknown human relative could be a species that has been discovered, such as a subspecies of Homo erectus, or an undiscovered hominin," Omer Gokcumen, assistant professor at the State University of New York at Buffalo, said in a recent statement.

"We call it a "ghost" species because we don't have the fossils," he added.

The new research is among more recent genetic analyses indicating that ancient Africans also had trysts with other early hominins.

The research team traced the evolution of an important mucin protein called MUC7 that was found in human saliva, examining its gene in more than 2,500 modern human genomes.

"When we looked at the history of the gene that codes for the protein, we see the signture of archaic admixture in modern day Sub-Saharan African populations," Gokcumen said

[Hub Cap]

No they are not. Africans have other, non-Neanderthal, non-Denisovan archaic admixture. However, all archaic humans were fully human in both behavior and physicality. They were simply the ancestral, original form. Neanderthals specifically were more evolved anatomically than modern humans. Just one example is the big Roman nose -- Neanderthal noses were the most sapien.

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170214-your-face-is-probably-more-primitive-than-a-neanderthals

[Taiguaitiaoghyrmmumin]

Technically yes.

[Hub Cap]

Technically yes.

How much of a cretin do you have to be to post a statement in a thread with factual evidence contradicting that statement? Africans have more ancestry from archaic hominids than any other group of people on Earth. Some Africans even have genetic haplogroups predating the appearance of anatomically modern traits and behaviors.

[Taiguaitiaoghyrmmumin]

How much of a cretin do you have to be to post a statement in a thread with factual evidence contradicting that statement? Africans have more ancestry from archaic hominids than any other group of people on Earth. Some Africans even have genetic haplogroups predating the appearance of anatomically modern traits and behaviors.

Original Homosapians had more ancestry from archaic hominids than europeans. Whats your point? Africans are the most homosapian humans.

[Hub Cap]

Lmao this goofball can't even spell sapien but apparently thinks early homo sapiens had non-sapien admixture.

Homo-Sapien isn't the same thing as "human" and you don't have a single DNA study backing up the things you say. Africans are not the most Sapiens they are mixed with non-Sapiens archaic hominids.

[Taiguaitiaoghyrmmumin]

Lmao this goofball can't even spell sapien but apparently thinks early homo sapiens had non-sapien admixture.

Homo-Sapien isn't the same thing as "human" and you don't have a single DNA study backing up the things you say. Africans are not the most Sapiens they are mixed with non-Sapiens archaic hominids.

You realize how dumb you sound to believe that early homosapians didnt have other hominid ancestry but believe modern homosapians have other homonid ancestry?

[Hub Cap]

You realize how dumb you sound to believe that early homosapians didnt have other hominid ancestry but believe modern homosapians have other homonid ancestry?

If you have any anmount of non-sapiens ancestry you are not fully sapiens whether you are are from 200,000 years ago or not. Africans have up to 9% non-sapiens admixture that is lacking in Europeans and Asians and are therefore the least sapiens.

This is why we need to defund public education, shut the schools down and put people like you back in to indentured servitude where you are kept illiterate. We never should have taught people like you how to read and write because you cannot understand the meaning of the words you use.

[Taiguaitiaoghyrmmumin]

If you have any anmount of non-sapiens ancestry you are not fully sapiens whether you are are from 200,000 years ago or not. Africans have up to 9% non-sapiens admixture that is lacking in Europeans and Asians and are therefore the least sapiens.

This is why we need to defund public education, shut the schools down and put people like you back in to indentured servitude where you are kept illiterate. We never should have taught people like you how to read and write because you cannot understand the meaning of the words you use.


9 percent of what non homosapian species? Humans have been mixing. So why is it inconcevible that early homosapians were?
If its lacking in euros and asians. Than that means its still in them idiot. They just have so little of it.


2nd they wouldnt teach you this in a public education system. You learn it outside the public education system. Because I choose not to write correctly doesnt neccessarily mean I dont know how to write correctly. I just chose not too. Even when informed how to. At best in a public education system you hear words like neanderthal. You arent going to learn about hominids in a public education system doofus.

[Taiguaitiaoghyrmmumin]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skhul_and_Qafzeh_hominins

This is one of those "archaic" ancestries africans have more of that is lacking in european.

[Hub Cap]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skhul_and_Qafzeh_hominins

This is one of those "archaic" ancestries africans have more of that is lacking in european.


The Skhul Qafzeh remains have never yielded DNA and there is no evidence of any kind linking them to Sub Saharan Africans. They were classified as proto-Caucasoids admixed with Neanderthals.

https://archive.org/details/stoneageofmountc02join

[Hub Cap]

9 percent of what non homosapian species? Humans have been mixing. So why is it inconcevible that early homosapians were?
If its lacking in euros and asians. Than that means its still in them idiot. They just have so little of it.

LMAO this idiot has no idea how privileged he is to be able to live in a world where he can hide behind a computer screen and call me an "idiot". 200 years ago you'd be getting burned at the stake for that one, boy. Europeans and Asians have zero percent of the archaic ancestry in Sub Saharan Africans, it is a hominid species that was unique to Africa and is only found in Sub Saharan Africans.




2nd they wouldnt teach you this in a public education system. You learn it outside the public education system. Because I choose not to write correctly doesnt neccessarily mean I dont know how to write correctly. I just chose not too. Even when informed how to. At best in a public education system you hear words like neanderthal. You arent going to learn about hominids in a public education system doofus.

Where the fuck are you from? They most definitely teach people what homo sapiens means in public high schools you short legged freak. God damn you must be from the third world or something.

[Taiguaitiaoghyrmmumin]

Lmao. They dont teach you about that in public school. They would teach you the theory of evolution and biology but not about homo ergaster. Or homo naledi ect you dumb idiot.

You claimed lacking , which means present but very little. Now you claim absent. Why are you changing your claims now? You dumb idiot learn to make a thesis and stick with it.

Your book is from the 1980s. Not anytime from recently. In modern anthropology they dont use terms like caucasian to determine the ancestry of early hominids.Literally the first sentence


The remains exhibit a mix of traits found inarchaicandanatomically modern humans. They have been tentatively dated at about 80,000-120,000 years old usingelectron" you really think it looks caucasian?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/86/Qafzeh.JPG/1280px-Qafzeh.JPG


Neandertal remains have been found nearby atKebara Cavethat date to 61,000-48,000 years ago,[6]but it has been hypothesised that the Skhul/Qafzeh hominids had died out by 80,000 years ago because of drying and cooling conditions, favouring a return of a Neandertal population[7]suggesting that the two types of hominids never made contact in the region. A more recent hypothesis is that Skhul/Qafzeh hominids represent the first exodus of modern humans fromAfricaaround 125,000 years ago, probably via theSinai Peninsula, and that the robust features exhibited by the Skhul/Qafzeh hominids represent archaic sapiens features rather than Neandertal features.[7]The discovery of modern human made tools from about 125,000 years ago atJebel Faya, United Arab Emirates, in the Arabian Peninsula, may be from an even earlier exit of modern humans from Africa.[8]In January 2018 it was announced that modern human finds atMisliya Cave, Israel, in 2002, had been dated to around 185,000 years ago, giving an even earlier date for an out of Africa migration.[9][10][11][12]


“Based on our analysis, the most plausible explanation for this extreme variation is archaic introgression — the introduction of genetic material from a ‘ghost’ species of ancient hominins,” Gokcumen says. “This unknown human relative could be a species that has been discovered, such as a subspecies ofHomo erectus, or an undiscovered hominin. We call it a ‘ghost’ species because we don’t have the fossils.”

Given the rate that genes mutate during the course of evolution, the team calculated that the ancestors of people who carry the Sub-Saharan MUC7 variant interbred with another ancient human species as recently as [b] 150,000 years ago[b], after the two species’ evolutionary path diverged from each other some 1.5 to 2 million years ago.





https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180615/d4c1c39ddbbeceb565028ab39af7cbe7.jpg

[Profileid]

Stupid question.
They're all equally human because they're well...human. The word was understood to mean everybody and was used long before we knew about neanderthal admix in European and Asian pops.

[Taiguaitiaoghyrmmumin]

Hmhttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180615/a3145cf5a82fe83acd96cba5c6b2b0b2.jpg

[Hub Cap]

The skull you posted was classified as Caucasoid but has its nasal bone broken off. It also shared certain features with the Tabun Neanderthal, from nearby.

The Skhul-Qafzeh people had very prominent noses.

https://biologos.org/uploads/blog-attachments/kidder-origins-2_2.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/I2i0bsm.jpg?2

You are literally posting quotes that prove your stupid daydreams correctly. These were people from Israel not sub-saharan Africa and they have never yielded DNA.

The archaic admixture in Africans has nothing to do with the Israeli remains from Skhul and Qafzeh caves.

Perhaps you should read the fucking book I posted instead of giving me that "politically correct coward scientists don't like to use the term Caucasoid anymore". The remains were studied through and through by none other than the famed Dorothy Garrod and Keith/McGowan, the pre-eminent anthropologists of the 20th century. These aren't "archaic hominids" they're anatomically modern humans and Caucasoid.

Just because they never taught you about the meaning of Homo Sapiens in your shitty third world favela school doesn't mean you aren't wrong, no matter how much sub-literate third world psychobabble you spout here.

[Taiguaitiaoghyrmmumin]

You idiot its a its traits are of archaic human and modern human. Any body could see that you retard. Cause caucosoid have rediculous eyebrow ridges right?. Fuckin idiot.

[DarkWater]

Absolutely

[Hub Cap]

Lmao @ this blabblering third world idiot. You need to get hit with a Litvin.

This Jewish man has a brow ridge every bit as large as Skhul IV, and is Caucasoid.

http://www.cityam.com/assets/uploads/main-image/cam_narrow_article_main_image/2014/10/dick-fuld-57ed7621333f6-57ed76213e26d.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/09/15/article-0-02AB472B00000578-816_468x286.jpg

It is well known Caucasoids can have very large brow ridges. In fact this man's entire facial development in profile is very similar to the profile of the Skhul IV fossil.

[Taiguaitiaoghyrmmumin]

Lmao @ this blabblering third world idiot. You need to get hit with a Litvin.

This Jewish man has a brow ridge every bit as large as Skhul IV, and is Caucasoid.

http://www.cityam.com/assets/uploads/main-image/cam_narrow_article_main_image/2014/10/dick-fuld-57ed7621333f6-57ed76213e26d.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/09/15/article-0-02AB472B00000578-816_468x286.jpg

It is well known Caucasoids can have very large brow ridges. In fact this man's entire facial development in profile is very similar to the profile of the Skhul IV fossil.You blubbering idiot it doesnt even look caucasoid. The actuall skull is there. It has a potruding jaw and large eyebrow ridges. Its archaic traits. And your book is an old source. It also has a small chin and narrow jaw. Unlike your shit book source

[Hub Cap]

My "shit book source" hahaha, as opposed to what? Your shit brain and eyes? The skull was assessed as fully Caucasoid by Dorothy Garrod and Keith/Mcgowan, do you know who these legends were?

[Taiguaitiaoghyrmmumin]

My "shit book source" hahaha, as opposed to what? Your shit brain and eyes? The skull was assessed as fully Caucasoid by Dorothy Garrod and Keith/Mcgowan, do you know who they are?

Actual skull. Next you will claim michael jordan is caucasian. Bahahaha stfu retard the actual skull is proof it is not caucasoid. Its very archaic looking. Your monkey shit brain cant even tell or understand.

[Hub Cap]

Actual skull. Next you will claim michael jordan is caucasian. Bahahaha stfu retard the actual skull is proof it is not caucasoid. Its very archaic looking. Your monkey shit brain cant even tell or understand.

Hahahahahahahaha this retarded fucking robot is still typing in full stops. Somebody throw this robot in the dumpster already, it's defective.

[markleslienicknak]

Isn't the logic flawed? Most "Neanderthal" DNA is allegedly determined to be Neanderthal by comparison with African DNA based on the "Out of Africa" theory. If you use this logic, then Africans would seem to be more homo sapien than anyone else on earth. However, there are not sufficient DNA samples from non-homo sapien beings to make sweeping generalizations.

I would have to suggest as a Christian, that none of us would be any less human than the next, due to the Great Flood(Deluge). We do have a wonderful variety of seemingly useless but actually useful DNA that probably permits us and our progeny the opportunity to adapt to changing conditions such as becoming lighter toned or darker toned, having fuller versus thinner lips, having fewer or more sweat glands, etc. If our DNA wasn't variable, then when a plague struck or environmental conditions suddenly changed, humanity would have been wiped out unilaterally or regionally. Fortunately, this has not been and is not the case.

[rein]

No, they have other archaic species mix.

[Natufian Kang]

Yes.

Africans are pure humans unlike non-Africans who mixed with various non-humans such as Neanderthalensis, Heidelbergensis, and Erectus.

Edit: Downvoting me will not change the fact that Europeans are not Human.