This article is all about the infamous “Muddle in the Middle” of the human ancestry between uncontested human ancestors and modern day. I will throw around some binomial species designations without going into great detail about them, but that’s only because I do not have a textbook sized space to ramble, and it wouldn’t change the ultimate conclusions anyway.
A note about terminology – Like many things deeply intertwined with Academia, terminology drift has been applied to the subject of this ramble. I will use the term ‘Hominid’ in the manner in which it was used when I was growing up. That is, it is that clade of apes which separated from the Chimps about two million years ago or so and contains the humans. Modern academicians have expanded the definition to include all the great apes. I am not talking about Orangutans, Gorillas, or Chimps. Now, because there needs to be a term for this clade, they’ve added ‘Hominin’, but I dislike this term and am set in my vocabulary. I will also often abbreviate Genus Homo as just “H.” when referring to a species name. Lastly, due to the number of clunky ways of referencing them, I will use H. Sapiens for any Hominids showing skeletal morphology within the margin of error for extant humans. “Anatomically Modern Humans” and such takes a lot of typing.
The story starts with the unfortunately named Homo Erectus – the Upright Man. That species is the progenitor to the rest of the Hominids I’m focused on. Genetic evidence suggests that it is during the reign of this species that we traded thick fur for additional sweat glands. Clearly, we’d been overclocked and required better cooling. H. Erectus had a very wide geographic range. They have been found all over Africa, the middle east, in East Asia (Peking Man), and Indonesia (Java Man). I have not confirmed H. Erectus in Europe, but several immediate descendants of H. Erectus lived there. This range comes in later, but I figured I should establish it now.
Now, as this ramble progresses, I will touch on aspects which get some people worked up, largely morphological traits and ancestry. To elaborate, a few years back, a study on the genetics of some ten-thousand-year-old European skeletons dropped. The New York Times and a number of other media outlets glommed onto a phrase in the report which stated that the individuals likely had “Darker” skin. Their articles were plastered with images of cavemen with downright Nubian complexions as the journalists waved the paper around as if they had won some sort of triumph. They counted on nobody looking too closely. In the study itself, the analysis said that the “Darker” complexion was in all probability… Olive. The Times and its ilk glommed onto a single term for purposes of a culture war and disregarded facts. I will admit to having my own biases, but there is a bit of a difference between what the facts said and how they were being presented.
Why did I bring up the Paleoeuropean skin tone story? Because one of the fact patterns I wanted to bring in as evidence for later is genetic data regarding Neanderthals. From skeletal remains, the Neanderthals and their immediate ancestors lived in Europe for over half a million years. This is an uncontested data point. I am including some H. Heidelbergensis in that for a nice round number. In case the name didn’t give it away, H. Heidelbergensis was first found near Heidelberg, Germany. Their European descendants became Neanderthals. Genetic analysis of Neanderthal remains has been going on for some time, with lots of people poring over the data, looking for anything interesting. One data point of note that has come from this genetic analysis is that Neanderthals possessed various genes which would produce morphological traits like pale skin, red or blond hair, and blue or green eyes.
This would scandalise the Times, but I merely gave it a shrug and a “Figures” because, aside from my biases as Anglo-Irish, I had one thing more convincing on my mind – Vitamin D. One thing that cannot be denied is that Neanderthals had robust skeletons. In Humans, Vitamin D is necessary for calcium absorption, and a few other factors. Without sufficient quantities, you cannot grow a robust skeleton. Living in European latitudes up to and including the British Peninsula (the channel hadn’t opened yet) for half a million years, what makes more sense – developing a pallor to better absorb sunlight, or hanging onto a dark complexion and struggling to find enough consumable sources of Vitamin D? There was no adaptative advantage to retaining higher melanin concentrations in Ice Age Europe, so it makes sense that the Neanderthals lost the tans. (They did retain genes for dark hair and eyes alongside the light-colored ones).
In Asia, we get another population of Hominids from which we have fewer bones. Initially the Denisovans were identified solely by one finger bone from Denisova cave and a genome sequence extracted from it. Of late, that genome sequence has been used to identify several other bones, including a cranium, as belonging to that population. Because we started genes-first with Denisovans, we have a very different perspective. One thing found in that genome was an adaptation to high altitudes. Given the number of tall mountains and plateaus in Asia, it is not difficult to figure out why they developed those genes. Given that these people also descended from H. Erectus, we can assume that they had a similar duration of residency in Asia as the Neanderthals did in Europe. This is an assumption because of the limited number of specimens thus far identified.
I’m going to swing back to biased reactions for a moment. In an audiobook course on paleoanthropology I recently listened to, the presenter put a great deal of effort into trying to discredit the dating of a particular set of bones found in Australia. The initial dating was done with what is regarded as one of the more reliable options available. I forget exactly the methodology used, but the alternative dates the presenter was pushing had significantly wider error margins than the initial date, and she kept hand-waving away the initial date as impossible. What was this date that must not be believed? Seventy thousand years old. Why was this so unbelievable? Because the bones were H. Sapiens, and the academic orthodoxy held that H. Sapiens crawled out of Africa 50-60 thousand years ago before slowly driving the other Hominids to extinction.
I am all for accurate dating, and if something is misdated, that needs to be corrected. However, her whole argument in favor of disregarding the 70k figure was because it conflicted with the orthodoxy. These Australian Sapiens were too old.
Here is where I finally get to the actual point of all of this.
From the genetic data, we know that Eurasians have Neanderthal DNA, and Tibetans and Oceanians have Denisovan DNA, with the high altitude adaptations being very prevalent in the Tibetans. This shared genetic ancestry is so widespread that it’s nothing even the slightest bit unusual. However, I am somewhat skeptical over the quoted percentages of 1-4%. The reason I am skeptical is because so much of the baseline DNA is shared from that common H. Erectus ancestry. These groups came from the same people, so there are bound to be some genes that could have come from either parentage. What this admixture has led me to postulate is thus – Humans didn’t speciate. Neanderthals, Denisovans and Sapiens were always the same species. Geographically we developed different morphological traits beneficial to the area, such as pale skin or improved oxygen capacity. But we didn’t become different species and lose the ability to freely interbreed.
The most extreme ‘Classical’ Neanderthal remains with the heaviest brows and slopiest foreheads also showed significant signs of inbreeding. These extreme examples became freakish and died out because they isolated from the rest of humanity and had too small a gene puddle. The Sapiens morphology is the most neotenous of the lot. Even today neoteny is regarded as an attractive trait. As the receding ice made the regional adaptations less significant, the more attractive Sapiens type features become bred into the Neanderthal and Denisovan regions, though even today we still see a wide range of features, often tied to those regions where they provide some benefit. This is why I am unbothered by 70k-year-old Sapiens on Australia. There had been people just across the water for millions of years before that. And besides, the neotenous Sapiens type had been around for a few hundred thousand by then. I don’t have a near religious adherence to the recent out-of-Africa hypothesis, and the facts are pointing to all of the children of H. Erectus (except those pesky Hobbits, et al.) being more or less one large gene pool.
One of the big counterarguments to this hypothesis that gets brought up is the lack of Neanderthal Y-chromosomes in modern humans. Setting aside the low sample size arguments regarding our genetic surveys of Neanderthal lineages, there are other explanations for this. While the counter-argument postulates hybrid sterility as the reason for this absence, there are other possibilities. First off, only about 40% of the males who ever lived have male line descendants left today. A man might have no children at all, or have only daughters, and thus never pass his Y along. Over fifty-thousand years, you get a lot of extinguished male lines. There are simply too many hybrids and too much lingering DNA in the population for me to not be skeptical of the hybrid sterility claim. We see Neanderthal and Sapiens DNA on both sides of the morphological line for tens of thousands of years until the populations converge into an indistinguishable group.
I have not spoken as much about Denisovan hybrids because we have so few Denisovan samples providing physical features. But the modern genetics imply a similar story.
Another advantage of my postulate is that it explains how in a relative short span of maybe ten thousand years, Sapiens could have out-competed the other Hominids on their own turf to the point that they vanished. They didn’t beat them, they joined them. Neanderthals never went extinct, because they are us.
Still reading and will comment further. But interesting take on Neanderthals. I will take any and all opportunities to introduce people to The Why Files. If you aren’t watching, you should be. It’s conspiracy related and tries to stay apolitical, but AJ (the founder) is quite clearly libertarian leaning and has no trust of government. Which, how the fuck could you cover conspiracies real or imagined and NOT distrust our or any other government? This is one of my favorite videos of there’s as it’s a take on Neanderthals I wasn’t familiar with. It’s a different take than UCS’s, but interest none the less.
The whole Europeans were dark skinned initially thing is making the rounds on social media again and I had the same eye roll as you seem to have had. 1. It has nothing to do with anything going on today which is the entire point of waiving around the results. 2. We likely got the genes for white skin from intermingling (or rape) with Neanderthals and this has been known for some time. 3. Yea, the skin wasn’t dark. More like Greek or Semitic which isn’t really shocking anyway. Mediterranean…which is considered white in the larger historical context.
Where to draw the line on speciation is pretty damn arbitrary and political. One of the funnier moments from when I was in college was in a class on human evolution. Well, there’s two good anecdotes that if said in a different environment probably would have gotten her canned. She pointed out how aboriginal Australians have really weird skulls and that there was some debate over their classification. And in another instance said that we got some good things from the Neanderthals like white skin (she caught herself after this and seemed nervous).
There’s little that really stops us from classifying different races as different species today beyond it would be highly problematic and create far more conflict.
It’s far neater and tidier to pretend that homo sapiens simply spread everywhere and displaced local competition so we’re all the same while ignoring the genetic inheritance from that “competition.” Your theory would never be accepted today even if true because it’s politically inconvenient.
But yea aboriginals have weird fucking skulls and Papa New Guinea has pygmy people who sure do seem to share some real commonalities with the extinct ancestors that we know existed in those areas.
I should rephrase or add to what I said above slightly. Saying that homo sapiens spread and blended in with local populations of “lesser” homo populations would be considered highly problematic. It would start to raise questions about how similar the various races of humans are and create debates on whether we truly are one species today or many similar species.
There is a growing set of evidence that the Out of Africa theory is bullshit. So it’s not to say that science will never go back down this route, but I’m skeptical we are mature enough to ever fully embrace the problematic implications of what you’re suggesting.
In the 20th century Darwinianism and human evolution were used for politics. The solutions we’ve come to may not necessarily be what fit the evidence best, but simply what was politically expedient to resolve more modern conflicts and problems. Basically, you saw the different schools of thought coalesce into a more politically convenient narrative to avoid the troubling implications of being associated with the wrong sorts of people when it went out of fashion to be racist in the generation after WW2.
Yeah… I would not touch this area of study professionally. It is one of many that one is simply not allowed to have an honest discussion about anymore.
UCS touches on this slightly with his talk about fossil finds in Australia. Problem for those who want to end conversation is they keep finding troublesome fossils like that in other parts of the globe.
Right now alls you are going to get is tweaks to the theories.
It has been stated by many that scientific paradigms only change when generations die off. So maybe one day when we are all on our death beds you’ll see a new paradigm here.
Meant to be a reply to Rhywun.
Pluto is still a planet.
This also touches on one of my favorite topics – ancient advanced civilizations.
Clovis first has been debunked with regards to the new world and there’s mounting evidence that humans were here for over 100k years. That was blasphemy once upon a time and scientists had their careers ruined for suggesting as much.
I covered one paper here that found DNA from Polynesia in Amazonian tribes that dates back 13,000 years. One of the funnier things was that the guys who did the DNA analysis turned to archaeologists for an explanation and were told it had to have come over land somehow because they just knew that people at that time couldn’t build boats. Somehow it was more reasonable to believe that they made it from Polynesia up over the land bridge into the new world and traveled all the way down into the Amazon than to believe that people found a way to cross the Pacific.
Migrations likely took place in all forms or fashions and we honestly have no fucking clue when boats were developed and never will. They came in waves likely for the entire timeline in which homo sapiens existed (and before that).
I’d like to see this person someday:
https://www.bradshawfoundation.com/south_america/serra_da_capivara/index.php
The founder of the Bradshaw Foundation was interesting in his own right https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Robinson_(sculptor)
I hadn’t seen that, but it backs up what I was saying perfectly.
There are so many things archaeologists have been smugly certain of that have been shown to be bullshit. And that’s just that we know about.
TT is quite fond of The Why Files, so I often overhear episodes. (We’re the proud owners of a Hecklefish “Lizzid People!” mug.) I was delighted to see AJ pop up as one of the talking heads on one of the “Discovery family of channels” programs recently, so I hope he gets more of those gigs.
It never gains much traction of generates much discussion when I posted. But I’ll keep doing it, damn it.
If people click, they’ll enjoy it. It’s some of the best content Youtube has to offer in my book and would be right up the ally of many of the posters here.
And it’s not just some conspiracy theory channel. Most of the videos turn into debunkings.
I like The Why Files too. It kind of reminds me of the Art Bell vibe.
Can’t read, hominin’.
Hom-nom-nom.
Gay
I was hoping this was about Malcolm in the Middle. 😒
Life is unfair.
These extreme examples became freakish and died out
Except for Ron Perlman.
Can’t we all just get along?
Thank You (Falettinme Be Mice Elf Agin) – Sly & the Family Stone
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImDxjn8tcYY
Also, they recently found a more intact Denisovian skull was found and it appears they were actually quite large.
BY LARGE MEAN…
Large like…the Anunnaki!
Why am I the only one posting on topic here?
I’m just in a mood. You and UnCivil have great comments on early humanity.
Unfortunate for who? Mae West said they were good to find.
Has anyone ever heard of Dean Withers? I hadn’t before today, though apparently the NYT’s thinks this little shit is the answer to the left’s problem with men.
This was one of his recent episodes that is making the rounds. I can only wonder why people don’t respect you. Or bully you.
The left has a masculinity problem. It’s not a man problem.
Had never heard of him. With any luck will not hear of him again.
Rare as hen’s teeth.
Huh, like a young Bill O’Reilly with the testosterone of a 70-year-old.
Fun fact: annoying Try Guys all have really low testosterone!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqlfHbH55W0
I’ve heard of Grant Withers and Bill Withers….
Where’s Q? This should have been posted by him. Why men should give their wives a cheat pass this Christmas – according to an expert.
You know, because we are now learning that monogamy is a harder fit for women than men despite stereotypes, it means that it’s now OK to cheat or something. According to the left at least.
If the roles were reversed, The Telegraph certainly would not be running a story on how wives should give men a hall pass this Christmas because monogamy is just so dang hard when you have a penis.
What self-serving bullshit.
Who’s the “we” in “we’re only now beginning to understand women’s sexuality properly”?
Women have always understood it. Men never will.
Wow, how original.
It’s like the last seventy-five years never happened.
women tire of their sexual partners faster than men, and need just as much sexual adventure and novelty as their male counterparts – if not more.
Ok, that’s fine. But don’t enter into the contract that has always been understood to mean that you won’t fuck anybody else. Slutting around is an option – it’s just that men are less likely to give you exclusive attention or significant financial support. And after 35 or so, the men will be looking for younger upstarts rather than you.
Ya know, early feminism had some legitimate grievances (most of which were addressed). But the movement has turned into advocating for “no restrictions whatsoever on women’s behavior, and men should bail them out of all consequences”.
The last paragraph is a real gem.
It’s a naked power grab advocating for the needs of women over those of men.
I also wonder how much these researchers consider how much modern culture influences what they’re studying. It’s always been easy for women to get laid, but with the advent of social media and dating apps it’s like…guys throw themselves at women. Even moderately attractive girls will get hundreds of responses on these dating apps. It’s completely disproportionate to the attention men get.
Pretending as if women have always been this way but were just repressed and oppressed is fucking ludicrous. Modern women are kind of just spoiled assholes.
It’s a naked power grab advocating for the needs of women over those of men.
Like the “4B” stuff being virtuous but MGTOW being evil.
I find that VERY interesting. Is your impression that this is unique to Neanderthals or simply more prevalent in known Neanderthal samples than it is in other ancient hominids? (As a pale redhead with blue eyes, I’m obviously interested for personal reasons. I can NOT claim a robust skeleton.)
That must be why I am on cute little fortnightly Vitamin D2 liquipills.
I got the pale skin and blue eyes. The red hair skipped a generation, thank goodness.
::narrows gaze::
😛
More generally on the subject of academic orthodoxy, I can’t bring specific examples to mind off the top of my head, but I believe that just as in biological/physical anthropology, there is a fair amount of the “Nuh uh! CAN’T be!” attitude among cultural anthropologists toward archeological finds that suggest that relatively advanced civilizations go back a lot further in human history than previously believed.
Well-written and a lot of fun. I mostly agree with ‘Neanderthals, Denisovans and Sapiens not speciating, and were always the same species.’ “Geographically we developed different morphological traits beneficial to the area, such as pale skin or improved oxygen capacity. But we didn’t become different species and lose the ability to freely interbreed.”
The interbreeding bit is the crucial one. Strange is sexy. True for all our whole species for a reason. (Like y’all and your girlfriends in Canada. Big boned. Hawt.)
“Initially the Denisovans were identified solely by one finger bone from Denisova cave…” –> I sense bullshit, possibly exceeding our (so-far) shared theory. That’s way too fucking little to make a goddamn bit of sense of anything. DNA, sure, but that very well shows regional and bottleneck peoples. Like lack of satellite climate date pre-’79, just way, way too little info.
Australia: Seems one large seafaring exploration there, perhaps over 100-1000s of years, could populate it enough to create contemporaneously modern cultures, consistent with the land’s lackings.
I meant WAY longer than 1000 years ago. Making it up, but maybe 50K ago? Folk show up on the east coast? Sure.
I could be wrong, but I believe DNA evidence indicated the existence of Denisovians.
Again, I don’t get the DNA differences. We can tell modern races apart with DNA. I have zero clue if the DNA they gathered is different enough to be considered inter-special, or if could be explained by regional, racial, isolates.
This primate no knowy. I’m calling skepticism on data drawn from such small samples.
As I stated above, defining what is or isn’t a different species is arbitrary. But they detected the presence of significant genetic material (I am not an expert on this matter by any means) to know there was something different from other known hominids.
If two animals can breed and produce fertile offspring, then they are the same species.
Sometimes even very similar organisms cannot interbreed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
Derp, you have a nasty habit of stating things as fact that aren’t. While producing fertile offspring is one of the key aspects of defining a species, there are a number of exceptions to that rule. The situation is just more complex than you are making it out to be. It is a primary, but still just one factor in defining what is or isn’t a species.
And if you look for exceptions to your rule online, one of the first ones you’ll find is in fact among…humans. Specifically because there is very compelling evidence that groups that experts classify as different species did in fact produce fertile offpsring.
Should say that you simplify and paint things as black and white that aren’t.
“(I am not an expert on this matter by any means)” Yes. As stated, we share this ignorance. But in a good way. I don’t know where the racial, regional, to special differences lie. I don’t find the ‘line’ terribly important, frankly.
Humans be human. And also sincerely, primates be primates, and mammals gonna mammal behind all of that. (And Life always does, indeed .. find a way.)
My welding skills are steadily improving. Master Yoda has been light in his criticism of it (seriously, the guy is even shorter than me). Had an interview at Walmart and will probably get an offer stocking pet food on the night shift. Good money and decent PT. Plus I will be more like Evan.
When I look at a chart of dog breeds, I wonder how many would have been classified as different species based on their bones by alien paleontologists.
https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.c562bd110a249b5e39e96180230ce932rik=GB%2fXdmTCpjXs8w&pid=ImgRaw&r=0
It turns out that paleontologists have probably incorrectly classified many juvenile dinos as separate species. For extinct animals, you must look at a bone under a microscope to tell if it’s from an adult or a kid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQa11RMCeSI
Also, dinosaur knowledge peaks around age 6 and in parents of 6-year-olds.
Skull shape, height, etc are irrelevant as far as species are concerned. If Homo sapiens interbred with neanderthals, they had the same number of chromosomes and were the same species.
“What does this tell you/us?” Uh. That it doesn’t change anything. This is like chess masters arguing the best play against another. Yep. There’s interest and it’s interesting, but it doesn’t matter. I do want to find the root of all things, especially as it may have medical benefits to modern humans, but, uh. Much parlance over minutiae. My paycheck doesn’t rely on it, and I’m only an interested observer.
I think we’re all on roughly the same page, perhaps not, but for me, who really cares about THE Deciding Line in speciation? It’s like folk arguing about the best Star Trek ep. Where we came from doesn’t affect me in any meaningful way.
The strongest piece of evidence for the Out of Africa theory is the increased genetic diversity of the area, which suggests people have been living there longer than anyone else. The fossil evidence is just icing on the cake.
Apes have 48 chromosomes and people have 46 (23 pairs). It is also easy to see from a karyotype diagram where the ape chromosomes merged to go from 24 to 23 pairs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmNIrUYETnc
The argument that genetic diversity is greater in Africa because they’ve lived there longer is an argument derived from the Out of Africa theory. We’ve found more genetic diversity in Africa, so it’s hypothesized that this is because they lived there longer. It’s not real evidence of anything. It’s a chicken or the egg argument in reality.
The exact opposite argument was used last year by some Chinaman to argue that the true origin of human ancestry was in East Asia. You can argue it’s self-serving, but that’s not my point. I’m not endorsing his views necessarily, but pointing out that genetic diversity in Africa is hardly the most compelling evidence of Out of Africa because we really don’t know if that’s the reason there’s more genetic diversity found in Africa. It’s a theory.
No, it’s not. Genetic diversity is measurable, and it is higher in Africa. This genetic argument came after the fossil arguments by many decades.
Pick any gene you like, and there is more variety of it in Africa. For example, there’s a greater variety in lactose tolerance in Africa vs other places. In some places, lactose tolerance was lost.
Yes, Derp. The genetic argument came AFTER. Which was my point? We observed greater genetic diversity in Africa much later and hypothesized that this is because humans lived there longer. It may very well be true, but we don’t know it’s true. We have no way of proving that. We explained the genetic diversity based on preconceived theories of human evolution. Which may end up being true or may be true, but it’s nothing a scientific fact.
Hence why a genuine expert in the field can in fact use the exact opposite argument – that a lack of genetic diversity – is in fact an argument for other locations as the origin of our species.
The fossil record itself isn’t really that relevant to what I’m saying, but even there it’s growing far more complex. Very ancient human remains have been found outside Africa that by far predate the timeline of the Out of Africa theory.
Rates of mutation are measurable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_rate#Measurement
They have corroborated against fossil evidence for many other species.
The oldest known homo sapiens fossil was found in Morocco, Africa:
https://www.sapiens.org/biology/oldest-homo-sapiens-fossils/
Consider other apes. The only one besides people found outside Africa is the orangutan.
What does that tell you?
Also, guess which continent has the most kinds of monkeys and apes, the animals most like people?
Yes, Morocco. While the DNA argument for Out of Africa is that we all originated from a common ancestor in South Africa some 60k years ago.
We now know that if we did originate in Africa, that there were waves and waves of migrations long before that.
This tells us nothing about where modern humans first evolved for reasons that should be obvious. Archaic humans had long moved out of Africa before there’s any evidence that modern humans existed.
Wrong again. The oldest hominid fossils are from central Africa.
***
The oldest hominid fossil is Sahelanthropus tchadensis, which dates back to approximately 7-6 million years ago. This fossil was discovered in Chad, Africa, and is considered the earliest known hominin following the evolutionary split between chimpanzees and human ancestors.
***
***
Significant changes to the hand first appear in the fossil record of later A. afarensis about 3 million years ago (fingers shortened relative to thumb and changes to the joints between the index finger and the trapezium and capitate).[16]
***
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus
How many times must you be wrong before I stop caring about anything you have to say on this subject?
What exactly do you think that proves about where modern humans evolved from? You are conflating things millions of years apart. Different species that had already migrated out of Africa.
You are but hurt because you have no fucking clue what you’re talking about.
Derpy – In Re Out of Africa. There’s a difference between “Hominids split from Chimps where the Chimps lived” and “H. Sapiens only left 50-60k years ago.”
The latter being the Orthodox “Recent out of Africa”.
The postulate is that we left much earlier, and so the oldest known appearance of the neotenous phenotype called Sapiens in the fossil record showing up in one particular corner of the range doesn’t really invalidate the rest.
If there are people in Africa with greater genetic diversity, and the oldest human and near human fossils are from Africa, and Africa has the most species of monkeys and apes, how much more evidence do you need to believe that humanity originated in Africa?
Hell, the oldest smiley face (3 million years old!) is from Africa:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makapansgat_pebble
You are right about the politics tied up in all this, and of course many countries have falsely claimed to be the cradle of humanity.
Here’s another one: why did so many white scientists studying these topics all find evidence to support the Out of Africa hypothesis? Were they brainwashed by Yakub’s tricknology ray gun?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQjDI3NorAY
Derpy – you’re getting worked up and Ignoring what is actually being said. No one has asserted that the early ancestral root isn’t in that geographic region.
It’s a question of time frame of departure and whether the modern neotenous phenotype is a replacement species or just an evolution of the existing species with a wider range.
You don’t actually know what the Out of Africa theory is, that there are different phases of it, and you don’t understand how different species of humans and our more ancient ancestors migrated.
Beyond that, none of this has anything to actually do with your initial argument that genetic diversity in Africa is in fact the greatest evidence that MODERN humans evolved first in Africa.
I’m not even arguing that they didn’t. That’s the funniest part. I was merely pointing out how you latched onto a single argument that gets made for why we came from Africa and you didn’t really understand it. It’s not the strongest evidence of anything with regards to the Out of Africa theory, but a theory that is derived itself from Out of Africa.
That was my only point.
Thanks to both UCS and Bro for tonight’s article and discussion.
You’re welcome. I would have participated more, but my sleep schedule is off and after making it through the workday I fell asleep. Totally forgot this was scheduled for today.
Human chromosome 2 is a merger of ape chromosomes 2a and 2b:
https://as1.ftcdn.net/v2/jpg/07/49/14/70/1000_F_749147068_YmNCTa9kBe0xL2u0HXuCdYt8zo5Chq2n.jpg
Just to reinforce what I said above about how political this all is (though it’s pretty obvious to everyone here), Facebook showed me yet another bogus article on the earliest reconstruction of an Egytpian’s face. The click bait Facebook post made the fella black even though the research did not indicate that. Just wade into those comments and see what people are fixated on with arguments boiling down to how pure of humans different species. Afrocentrists/blacks arguing that they are the only pure humans and angry white dudes arguing that they’re proud of their Neanderthal DNA because it’s why whites have higher IQ’s.
This shit has always been used to reinforce preconceived notions on racial superiority. It’s always been political. It’s a minefield.
Fun fact: Ancient Egyptians called their country Kemet, meaning land of blacks. Painted hieroglyphics give a clue about skin colors.
https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th/id/OIP.Pe_jRklllEd0wE144hOZZgHaC7?r=0&rs=1&pid=ImgDetMain&o=7&rm=3
That…is not what Kemet means. Dude, go to bed. You’re drunk.
***
The term “Kemet” was used by the ancient Egyptians to refer to their country. It means “Black Land” and was derived from the fertile black soil along the Nile valley, which resulted from the annual Nile inundation. The name “Kemet” is based on the ancient Egyptian word “km” which meant “black”. It is an endonym for Egypt.
***
Fun fact: Sudan is garbled Arabic for “black land” from aswad.
Go ahead, argue me on this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WskWZfFpWNI
Are you really going to pretend that these two statements are the same?
You can literally go on Wikipedia and see their definition of Kemet explicitly states it does not refer to skin tone, but the soil. What did you argue in your first response there? That Kemet referred to skin tone.
I don’t want to be a dick, but you’re making it hard. You are completely out of your depth and I’m no expert on this shit by any means.
I’ve forgotten more hieroglyphics than 99% of people will ever know:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUYfem7sMi0
https://archive.org/details/HowToReadEgyptianHieroglyphsAStepByStepGuideToTeachYourself_201902/page/n11/mode/2up
***
In 2023, American comedian Kevin Hart’s planned tour of Egypt was cancelled, after an uproar on Egyptian social media over Afrocentric claims made by Hart about Egyptian history.[337]
In response to the Hart controversy, Egyptian Egyptologist Zahi Hawass stated that “Africans have nothing to do with the pyramids scientifically”[338][339] Hawass has previously commented on the race controversy and expressed the view that the Ancient Egyptians were not black and “We believe that the origin of Ancient Egyptians was purely Egyptian based on the discovery made by British Egyptologist Flinders Petrie at Naqada, and this is why the Ancient Egyptian civilisation did not occur in Africa, it occurred only here”.[340] Hawass had also affirmed that “No Africans built the pyramids because Kushites didn’t exist at the period when the pyramids were built” and dismissed the “notions that Egyptians are Black Africans despite our presence in Africa”.[341]
***
Amusing. Descendants of the Arabs who conquered Egypt (garbled Greek for “below the Aegean”) whine about how ain’t no niggers built the pyramids.
OK, you got me. It was about the soil, not the skin color. That is why I also linked to pics of hieroglyphics clearly showing dark-skinned people.
But not enough to know what Kemet actually meant initially and not honest or humble enough to admit it, but instead tried to double down and act as if you weren’t contradicting yourself one post later while completely failing at trying to own me.
As I said above, go to bed. I hope you’re drunk.
Lemme tell ya what, boys: Black, fertile, race, soil.
Pussy pink.
Egypt had ranges of skin tones from what we’d consider Mediterranean to black and there’s differences between Northern and Southern Egypt and they are all depicted in hieroglyphs. There’s DNA evidence indicating a range, as well. Recent study found a more Mediterranean complexion which is how most people picture Egyptians. Most people today don’t consider Egyptians white.
There were rulers of Egypt who were black.
I don’t know what Derp wants to argue. I wasn’t making an any argument about the race of Egyptians to begin with. I was commenting on how batshit people go over the topic of race and our ancestry.
If he was coming here to espouse Afrocentric theories on Egypt’s racial demographics, well…yea, I’m not going to endorse that bullshit.
***
The term “Sudan” originates from the Arabic phrase “Bilad-al-sudan,” meaning “country of the Blacks.” This term was used to refer to a region in Africa, particularly between the Sahara and the Equator, and is derived from the Arabic word “aswad,” which means “black.” In English usage, it has gradually restricted to refer specifically to the country south of Egypt.
***
Gee, could there be connection, he asked rhetorically.
Nubians are the darkest people in terms of skin tone. When the Arabs arrived, they looked around and applied this exonym to the area.
How does that say anything about anything else being discussed?
It doesn’t. He got shit mixed up for whatever reason.
Wrong, those around Lake Victoria are even darker.
If Egypt is just north of a country the Arabs called “Darky-Black-istan”, dontcha think maybe the ancient Egyptians were kinda black too?
No…because the hieroglyphs clearly depicted a RANGE of skin colors that were more often reddish and yellow and not actually “black” to include in the ones you linked to. More than that, there is DNA evidence on this subject. It was just within the last year that one study found King Tut shared common ancestry with Europeans.
No one argues that there weren’t blacks living in ancient Egypt. There are hieroglyphs that depicted black as night skin, often symbolic. Then there’s the typical depiction which isn’t black at all no matter how much Afrocentrists want to claim it is.
Yet very few seriously try and argue that ancient Egyptians were “white” as we perceive whiteness today. Nor was that the point I was making with my post.
I wonder how much of a difference in perspective the shift from primarily water-based transportation to primarily land-based transportation had on what constitutes a barrier to travel. The Shara and the many cataracts of the Nile were more of a barrier to travel than the mediterranian, which served as a bit of a highway.
You are also overestimating the proximity of the population centers in the two regions. The Ancient Egyptions noted that the people to their south were distinctively darker. The modern descendants of the Egyptions are the Copts, and they’re still with us. They don’t particularly blend in with subsaharan populations either.
I’d imagine faux racial hatred, along with the very real, was emphasized to further dispute among all races.
The weight of evidence is that humanity started in Africa. The white scientists who studied these things had every incentive to lie about it, but they didn’t.
Every human alive today has adaptations based on the African savannah: sweat glands, upright posture, opposable thumb, etc.
Doesn’t it seem odd to you that only some humans have both sweat glands and body hair? Gee, I wonder which came before the other.
And who cares about the light-skinned people routinely born to black parents in Africa?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96jwCLXHH-M
Huh?! I guess light skin is a fairly common mutation. But would I know about such things? I just fucking lived there.
Question – what exactly do you think other people are saying?
With you? Hard to say. You’re so longwinded I almost forget the first half of what you said before you start saying the other half.
The current consensus is that the migration of homo sapiens out of Africa happened between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago.
***
What this admixture has led me to postulate is thus – Humans didn’t speciate. Neanderthals, Denisovans and Sapiens were always the same species. Geographically we developed different morphological traits beneficial to the area, such as pale skin or improved oxygen capacity. But we didn’t become different species and lose the ability to freely interbreed.
***
Humans didn’t speciate? Of course not. Thanks, Captain Obvious.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhcH0c469F8
UCS talks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9q1wYR7nLA0
You gave it a good shot UCS. But he’s in a combative mood despite not having the slightest fucking clue what he’s actually talking about.
OK, I’ll bow out and review this tomorrow. I’ve been drinking heavily and have been in a bad mood generally.
Apologies to all. Good night.
I’m not taking any of this personally. I try to avoid lobbing insults when arguing shit online and we’re all mostly friends here. So no hard feelings on my end.
👆
🤭
🤣
Yusef can’t fuck you, sweetie. He’s too old and decrepit. I unfortunately wouldn’t touch you with a 10 foot pole. I’m sure there’s man desperate enough to do so, though. You just have to keep looking.
Quod erat demonstrandum.
Relevant article to the above to make clear what exactly UCS is arguing.
We don’t have neat and tidy objective criteria upon which we base speciation. And when it comes to humans, the question is always going to be political as I’ve argued since my first response.
Skull and pelvic shape are enough to make Neanderthals a distinct species. But if you tried to suggest that aboriginal Australians are distinct from the rest of us, you’d be crucified.
Categories that we define to nature are pretty much inherently subjective.
At this time and perhaps forever, the scientific consensus is that these were different species that homo sapiens displaced despite some level of interbreeding.
“The reason I am skeptical is because so much of the baseline DNA is shared from that common H. Erectus ancestry. These groups came from the same people, so there are bound to be some genes that could have come from either parentage. What this admixture has led me to postulate is thus – Humans didn’t speciate. Neanderthals, Denisovans and Sapiens were always the same species. Geographically we developed different morphological traits beneficial to the area, such as pale skin or improved oxygen capacity. But we didn’t become different species and lose the ability to freely interbreed.”
This.
We see the same thing in lots of other species naturally and see it in species that we have domesticated and deliberately manipulated the genes of.
Sadly our political nature is a huge impediment for seeing the obvious.
You think this subject is hard to sort out? Wait 5000 years and be a fly on the wall while future scientists try to figure this out…..
https://people.com/pet-donkey-missing-5-years-found-living-with-wild-elk-8667442
Unrelated to the main topic of discussion –
Can anyone recommend a good jack and jack stand which won’t even blink at a two ton weight? While I’d prefer made in usa, it has to NOT be Made in China.
I want to do some undercarriage work on my car, but I’m not getting under that thing when it’s up on cheap chinese crap.
To elaborate on what I want to do – at the moment there’s some surface rust on the frame – normal for New York after nine years. I’d like to do some preventative maintenance – either chemical rust restorer or a wire brush then applying new primer and paint so that the simple surface rust doesn’t turn into something worse.
I’ve never done this before. I just figure it’s within my skillset and get me more accustomed to doing my own maintenance.
Also, what are you doing up at this hour UnCivil?
I was sick for half of last week, and my sleep schedule is off. I slept from after work until 1am. I’m going to keep pushing the bedtime later until it’s more normal.
The jack is not that important. Never trust a jack. Always jack the car up and use solid blocking before putting any part of your body under it.
Such things are made: https://www.amazon.com/AmazonBasics-Steel-Jack-Stands-Capacity/dp/B0753MMRN7/ref=asc_df_B0753MMRN7?tag=bingshoppinga-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=80814156492415&hvnetw=o&hvqmt=e&hvbmt=be&hvdev=c&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=81214&hvtargid=pla-4584413735462061&psc=1
^I dont fully trust these^
I prefer these: https://www.homedepot.com/p/8-in-x-8-in-x-16-in-Concrete-Block-1001924/202323962
Dont use a single stack. Holes vertical, double stack with alternating orientation.
I have heard it before…too much trouble takes too long I just want to it only takes a minute blah blah blah.
Take your time. Make the risk as close to zero as possible. This is your life we are talking about.
I was going to use wooden cribbing rather than concrete.
Ok. As long as you have a solid base. Jacks are….not that. The jack lifts, then you set the car on something solid. Then lift again, remove the blocks and set the car on the ground.
I like hydraulic jacks because of their ease of use but they are the least trust worthy. Scissor jacks are great but usually a bit Mickey Mouse and wobbly. Ratchet jacks are the least solid as they are tall and dont have a wide base…..
What I use: hydraulic jack then concrete blocks.
Make sure the blocks are under the frame.
Good luck. Be safe.
When I planted them, I knew that I would eventually be digging up the radishes, but for some reason I haven’t managed to make myself dig up the plants.
I am kinda sick of them, it’s been a bit of a failure given the unhinged tangle of greens that have sprouted. I’m not sure what I did wrong. I should just see if I have any radishes or if all the energy went into growing more greens.
You can cook the greens too. Allegedly. I don’t.
They don’t look appetizing. Looks like weeds.
You don’t have to eat them,even if you cook them. My wife cooks stuff that I don’t eat.
Too much nitrogen. Radishes can grow in nearly any soil. If you were using potting soil it may have had too much fertility. More is not necessarily better.
Too many plants in too small of an area?
I had a giant bag of MiracleGro, which I first used to plant the pepper. I suppose it’s pre-fertilized or at least richer as a baseline.
Get moving, Glibs. We’ve got illegals to deport.
✈️🚌👽
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_-mLxyWd0M
🎶🎶
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXTzm5GtqVo
Bonus hip hop track!
Deportation just doesn’t feel like harsh enough a punishment.
Oh well.
I don’t
Why not?
They aint my concern.
🥳 I won $4 in the PowerBall.
Woohoo!
I won $5 once on a scratch-off that I won in a radio call-in contest.
I don’t normally play the lottery.
When stressed or distressed, I will buy the fantasy of potentially winning. It’s less damaging than stress eating.
I never buy a ticket, I’m just too lucky and might win and turn my life upside down.
https://6abc.com/post/effects-hurricane-erin-felt-jersey-shore-week/17580282/
No swim warnings. 🤷🏼♂️
I’m trying to think of a joke that wasn’t mean-spirited.
I didn’t have a ghost of a chance.
It is a legitimate issue having grown up there.
But the attention it is getting is asinine. I heard this AM on the radio Murphy is holding a fucking press conference.
Isn’t it just part of culling the weak section of the herd anyway?
It’s gonna take a much bigger storm than that, to do any good, TEd,S
Every year in August there are periods of rough surf and rip currents due to some tropical storm or hurricane out in the Atlantic, but nobody ever made such a big deal about it.
Mornin’, reprobates!
Mornin’, UCS. Thanks for a very enjoyable article.
Good morning, ‘patzie, Ted’S., Sensei, U, Sean, and Teh Hype!
My thanks, too, for the interesting article. I’m a little later than usual because I was skimming the many overnight comments.
Morning, GT, Mr Patzer.
Even if you’re still off your preferred schedule, I hope your afternoon/evening sleep has left you well-rested enough to function at work. And I’m glad you were able to get in on the discussion of your well-done post.
I’m hoping I can improve tomorrow;s schedule so that there’s no concerns about driving back from the office.
🚗🚓🚕🚙🚌🚐😬🤞🚑🚒🚚🚛🚜🏍
🥺😱😭
Good morning to all the Glibs, regardless of skin color, ethnic origin or specie.
I’ve been up for an hour but enjoying the Bro-Derp comedy hour. Thanks UCS, thought provoking but somehow I’m not bi-racially curious.
Good morning, 4(20)!
5 weeks ’til HH. My bee partner won’t be here to ramrod the operation, my kids are going to come and will have to do some work for a change.
Good morning!
The purpose of taxonomy is to provide employment for taxonomists.
My mother (degreed microbiologist) taught me as a child there were two kingdoms. By the time I was in 7th grade there were three. By college there were five. This reshuffling of the tree of life has advanced biology in zero observable ways.
Animal, Vegetable, and Mineral.
/Modern Major General.
Plant, Animal, Protist.
It’s not just about reshuffling…we keep digging up fossils that do not fit into any of the known kingdoms or phyla. Yet what you say holds true…it has advanced biology in no observable way.