Humans: >hairless except for signalling tufts >bipedal >no penile bone >long flipper feet >webbed fingers and toes >hydrodynamic nose cowling >chin >forehead housing prefrontal cortex (soul) >s shaped spine for swimming >smaller ribcage housing longer lung >weaker muscles that can store more O2 >larger fat percentage for floating/buoyancy >pruned fingertips for clinging to wet rock >DIVING REFLEX present only in aquatic mammals
Chimps, Gorillas and others: >none of this shit
Atlanteans interbred with aquatic aliens, and all humans with Atlantean lineage are semi aquatic. Noticably Africans and Asians lack some of these features.
imagine actually falling for all the pseudoscientific nonsense that is aquatic ape theory
except for signalling tufts
no, the hair retained in humans is not "signalling tufts"
all the great apes descend from an arboreal primate that was already bipedal, a crown hominoid that lived ~18-20 million years ago
it's rather chimpanzees and gorillas which evolved two very different forms of knuckle-walking as they descended to the ground, while humans retained their bipedalism
pic related >>no penile bone
humans have no need for one due to our sexual behavior >>long flipper feet
fingers and toes
not even remotely true
nose cowling
couldn't be further from the truth either
in fact, humans have the least hydrodynamic/aerodynamic nose of all the great apes >>chin
exactly the opposite of what you'd expect with your nonsensical hypothesis
also, most likely due to how it provides more space for the tongue and lips, so that it's easier to vocalize more precisely
housing prefrontal cortex (soul) >>(soul)
again, >>>/x/ is that way >>s shaped spine for swimming
sure, let's just put "for swimming" behind every anatomical trait humans have, that will prove your point
the s-shaped spine exists because we spend extended periods standing up, it's a form of compression
ribcage housing longer lung
you forgot to add "for swimming"
muscles that can store more O2
more O2
wtf am I even reading at this point?
fat percentage for floating/buoyancy
yeah, definitely doesn't have anything to do with the survival advantage that confers outside of the natural human habitat where we evolved (the rainforest), and where food was much more infrequent
fingertips for clinging to wet rock
applies to many primates, even macaques
this is to maintain climbing grip even when it's wet, it's primarily for trees, not rocks
imagine suggesting humans clinging to rocks in water
nice try, but really just stupid
>also, most likely due to how it provides more space for the tongue and lips, so that it's easier to vocalize more precisely
Don't forget the fact that Homo sapiens and (maybe) Homo antecessor are the only members of Homo with chins. If chins are supposedly a result of being semi-aquatic at one point, then why don't Neanderthals, Denisovans, coastal Homo erectus, and other species of humans have them?
because they obviously didn't have the privilege of being cross-bred with dolphins by Atlanteans
duh
>because they obviously didn't have the privilege of being cross-bred with dolphins by Atlanteans >duh
You arent thinking this through, you arent applying your intellect.
If you walked into a forest full of foxes, would you be able to breed with them immediately? Clearly not. You would need to use artificial means to humanize them. These artificial antorpomorphized foxes could then be bred with to produce the first true hybrids. And then these hybrids would probably change as they breed with others.
Other hominins are clearly the artificially elevated types, and humans are the direct hybrids that an alien got by fucking neanderthals or similar.
>no, the hair retained in humans is not "signalling tufts"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5586851/Expressive-eyebrows-helped-early-humans-survive-helped-express-emotion-scientists-say.html
Beaten 1:0
>all the great apes descend from an arboreal primate that was already bipedal, a crown hominoid that lived ~18-20 million years ago
Yeah or dinosaurs 100s of million years ago, hominins and chimps evolved from a quadruped 4mya
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047248420301597
Defeated 2:0
>humans have no need for one due to our sexual behavior
What is this lamarckianism?
Raped 3:0
>long flipper feet >webbed fingers and toes >not even remotely true
/looks down at feet/
/looks at hands/
Pillaged 4:0
>hydrodynamic nose cowling >couldn't be further from the truth either
/looks in mirror/
Burned 5:0
>forehead housing prefrontal cortex (soul)
Imagine not knowing about souls, what an uneducated idiot.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prefrontal_cortex >a person's will to live >personality >planning >decision making >moderating social behavior >differentiate among conflicting thoughts >determine good and bad, better and best, same and different >future consequences of current activities >prediction of outcomes >concrete rule learning >higher levels of abstraction.
Yeah imagine an animal without this and convince me it has a soul. Or dont, since you cantnimagine things and you lack a prefrontal cortex.
Decimated 6:0
>the s-shaped spine exists because we spend extended periods standing up, it's a form of compression
Yeah like how all bipedal animals have s shaped spines. I remember t-rex has an s shaped spine, and ostritches have an s shaped spine. Hey why do dolphins have an S-shaped spine? All that standing around at dolphin parties???
eyebrows are not the only patch of hair we have left, retard
1-0 me
humans didn't evolve from dinosaurs, retard
and now, we didn't evolve from a quadruped, I showed you clearly how we actually evolved
2-0 me
pointing out that our sexual behavior doesn't necessitate a baculum is not Lamarckianism, clearly you don't even know what that means
3-0 me
I look at human feet and hands all the time, including my own, they are not "flipper-shaped", nor do they have webbing
4-0 me
and again, human noses are the least hydrodynamic/aerodynamic of all the great apes, and primates in general
5-0 me
and no, higher cognitive capacities are not a "soul", >>>/x/ is that way
6-0 me
and comparing humans to other bipedal animals is retarded, because the examples of birds (and their predecessors, dinosaurs), don't stand upright in the same way we do at all, their spines are aligned primarily horizontally rather than vertically
imagine being that retarded
7-0 me
nice try, though
try again
>provide a link showing im right >HU UH HUH OH HUH MAN OH HUH NOT ALSO ASS HAIR!
kek
Eyebrows are for direct signaling in murky waters, top of head hair is multivariant (signals health for example), pubic hair is also a signal to help find sexual organs underwater.... The only hair thing you can say is not, is sparse regular body hair, that is designed to wick off moisture from the skin.
Not going to read the rest since you cant even be arsed to reply to a source I worked FOR YOU to find with respect, why should I put in more effort when Im clearly right.
>you forgot to add "for swimming"
Longer lungs can be compressed easier for diving. A large ribcage would prevent compresison of lung, leading to too much buoyancy and nitrogen toxicity as you dive. As you dive the volume of air sack has to be compressed to provide neutral pressure to the blood.
Gloved slap 8:0
>weaker muscles that can store more O2 >wtf am I even reading at this point?
Things you dont understand clearly. The same heme in red blood cells is also present in muscles, the more heme a muscle has the more oxygen it can store. Human skeletal muscles tend to be type I slow twitch, with largest amount of heme. Ape muscles are type IIA fast twitch, type IIB glycolytic or type IIX anaerobic muscles. As a fraction of body weight, humans have 3x more heme in skeletal muscles than in the actual circulatory system. The same value for great apes is 1/2 of total circulatory volume.
Rectal apocalypse 9:0
>survival advantage that confers
Again lamarckianism. We didnt move into odd environments and then evolve to live there. We gained an inherent advantage and THEN had thenoption of moving to different environments.
Annihilation 10:0
>imagine suggesting humans clinging to rocks in water
Imagine suggesting 100-200lb humans cling to rainy branches just with their fingertips fucking lol. A buoyant animal in water clinging to river bed with fingertips makes way more sense.
eyebrows are not the only patch of hair we have left, retard
1-0 me
humans didn't evolve from dinosaurs, retard
and now, we didn't evolve from a quadruped, I showed you clearly how we actually evolved
2-0 me
pointing out that our sexual behavior doesn't necessitate a baculum is not Lamarckianism, clearly you don't even know what that means
3-0 me
I look at human feet and hands all the time, including my own, they are not "flipper-shaped", nor do they have webbing
4-0 me
and again, human noses are the least hydrodynamic/aerodynamic of all the great apes, and primates in general
5-0 me
and no, higher cognitive capacities are not a "soul", >>>/x/ is that way
6-0 me
and comparing humans to other bipedal animals is retarded, because the examples of birds (and their predecessors, dinosaurs), don't stand upright in the same way we do at all, their spines are aligned primarily horizontally rather than vertically
imagine being that retarded
7-0 me
nice try, though
try again
you can claim pretty much anything and make it "for swimming"
longer lungs can have literally a zillion other functions, such as increasing our aerobic capacity
8-0 me
marginally more myoglobin just serves to underpin that point, that we're generally better adapted to aerobic behavior, such as walking long distances
9-0 me
also, you repeatedly call natural selection "Lamarckianism", continuing to prove that you have zero idea what that is
yes, we absolutely did move into odd environments and had to adapt to life there, that started when we moved out of our natural habitat, the tropical equatorial rainforest, and out onto the savannah
at that point people who stored fat more easily got naturally selected for
learn basic evolutionary biology, retard
10-0 me
and yes, most of the grip is ultimately derived from the fingertips, you clearly have never gone climbing or bouldering, or you'd know that people even specialize in doing holds where they can literally only access with their fingertips
typical ignorant retard
11-0 me
verdict: you're a retard, but we already knew that
>We wuz aquatic apes n shieet
Thats his slander, not what I said. Aquatic ape is a bullshit lamarckian hypothesis that humans first moved next to coast and rivers and changed to have aquatic features to better survive later. This is obviously insane and not how evolution works.
What I said, very clearly, is that aliens hybridized their genome with great apes, which resulted in humans. These humans, being more suited to aquatic life, THEN moved to coasts and rivers.
Please dont misrepresent my argument or try to create a strawman to make it look bad.
let me guess, the moron brigade is over from /misc/?
there's nothing "random" about evolution itself
the only aspect of evolution that can be said to be "random" is natural variation, which contains both random and non-random variables
that doesn't mean the actual process of natural selection is random, because the most advantageous traits end up conferring a benefit for the survivability and reproductive success of specific individuals
Someone please explain to me the new theories as to hominid evolution, specifically the new alternative to the "out of africa" theory. Growing up I had been told that homo sapiens originated in Africa and migrated out where some interbred with existing Neanderthal populations, and that explanation makes sense to me.
there aren't any alternate explanations that make sense at all, and I have no idea why that explanation doesn't make sense to you, it makes perfect sense based on everything we know
however, the points made about certain people from sub-Saharan Africa having more admixture from previous species still stands, the same is true to a lesser extent for some people in Southeast Asia and Oceania
there aren't any alternate explanations that make sense at all, and I have no idea why that explanation doesn't make sense to you, it makes perfect sense based on everything we know
however, the points made about certain people from sub-Saharan Africa having more admixture from previous species still stands, the same is true to a lesser extent for some people in Southeast Asia and Oceania
never mind, I read what you wrote as "makes no sense to me"
I see now that you said it does in fact make sense to you
so yes, it does indeed make sense, and it still makes sense, still the best explanation we have
Why do you guys use extreme examples to say "see they all look like this"? That's like if a hotep used this image and called white people pale gorillas or something like that.
Because taxonomists are weird. A fish with an extra stripe or a wolf of a slightly different size or coat can be a different subspecies but humans and other apes can't.
Because if something as simple as body patterns was enough to deviate great apes then it will fracture human races into (sub)species. Yeah we can procreate with eachother. So can wolves with dogs with coyotes. A lot of people would be upset by that.
Wolves and coyotes diverged from each other millions of years ago, whereas you diverged from a Nigerian (assuming you're not black lol) 70,000 years ago.
why do people only treat chimps and bonobos as seperate species when other apes have subspecies as well?
Other apes have different species outright. The three orangutan species (which are all critically endangered) all diverged from each other millions of years ago too, but it took us a long time to realize that they were that distinct. Modern humans are the only species of great ape with no other relatives in our genus, as Neanderthals and other species died out.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>you diverged from a Nigerian (assuming you're not black lol) 70,000 years ago
Out of Africa theory has taken quite a bit of fire recently with the “ghost ancestor” dna studies. The cro magnon/homo sapiens ancestors of Africans traveled South into Africa and met and crossbred with existing populations of one or several archaic hominids (possibly homo erectus or homo habilis). This suggests that Africans are distinct and not neat representatives of the ancestors of other human populations as previously believed.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-science-ghost-idUSKBN2072X9
1 year ago
Anonymous
It was homo capensis, the creators of whypeeple.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Are you copying Robert Sepehr? He said the exact same thing about said archaic hominins, even though the LCA of this particular species that interbred with West Africans (and to a lesser extent the ancestors of Eurasians, who DO have this ancestry, as the earliest admixture date was 124kya) and us existed between 360kya-1.02 mya, or a general mean estimate of about 600kya. This is the same divergence gap between us, Neanderthals, and Denisovans, though Neanderthals and Denisovans are now thought to have potentially split from us even earlier, around 800kya.
If it was Homo erectus or even Homo habilis, the DNA would be considered superarchaic, and MUCH older than even 1.02 mya. It wouldn't be Homo erectus because they were extinct in Africa by the time Homo sapiens evolved, and it certainly wouldn't be Homo habilis because they died out 1.65 mya, and would have a much older LCA estimate than that. Fact of the matter is, Homo sapiens in Africa is the same species as Homo sapiens elsewhere, just with more admixture from a different species of human that could potentially be closer to us than we are to Neanderthals. My guess would be Homo bodoensis, as that species lived in Africa from as far back as 750kya to as recently as 130kya.
1 year ago
Anonymous
precisely correct on every single count
1 year ago
Anonymous
I don't understand this avenue. Why is time relevant for the discussion of speciation at all? Speciation occurs are drastically different times for every single species on earth, and hominins are known for sudden, high degrees of rate of change. The 1000 genomes project estimates h. sapien nucleotide diversity exists at around .4% for the furthest populations of humanity (we'll use west Africans and northern Europeans for this). This degree of nucleotide diversity is exactly the same that's present in chimps and Bonobos, and for them it is often cited as one of the arguments for their speciation, along with an inch difference in average height, pigmentation, among other traits that also exist between our two example populations of h. sapien, and even in greater extents such as skull morphology. Time is also irrelevant because there are a plethora of other species that have undergone speciation well under 80-70ky. The precedents in the taxonomic system are there in abundance, and ironically it's west Africans than seem to be the black (lol) sheep in this case. If this was any other species, biologists would be clawing at eachother to announce the speciation first. Now, does this really mean that Africans and Siberians are a seperate species? Or is it just a glaring issue with the taxonomic system? I dunno, it's up to you, for me? Yeah, I'd say so, I don't think that's a bad thing either, I don't think it implies a degree of superiority of one over the other, it's just a recognition of the large degree of diversity that exists within humanity that we already knew existed.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>you diverged from a Nigerian
africans came from caucasoids
1 year ago
Anonymous
>africans came from caucasoids
"Caucasoids" as a cranial phenotype is more recent than "Blackid" as a phenotype. What IS true is that West and East Africans have admixture from West Eurasians (not as much in West Africans but certain populations have up to 18% West Eurasian ancestry like the Fula, and the paternal haplogroups in West Africans are related to the ones found in North African and some Middle Eastern and Greek haplogroups, while in Chad and Cameroon, R1b is pretty common), but both are relatively new in comparison to ancient Homo sapiens, which looked nothing like modern Africans or West Eurasians.
Humans diverged from each other, by your own estimation, 20k years before distinct populations of coyote and north american wolves, and would in any reasonable world be considered to be made up of various subspecies
1 year ago
Anonymous
Homo sapiens has never diverged into different species at all, H. sapiens is one very distinct species of human
1 year ago
Anonymous
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.1501714
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4687486/ >North American gray wolf–Great Lakes wolves, FST = 0.057; coyote–Great Lakes region wolf, FST = 0.045; North American gray wolf–red wolf, FST = 0.177; coyote–red wolf, FST = 0.108 >The short answer is that the estimate of FST among human populations sampled from these regions is 0.05 for the microsatellite data and 0.10 for the SNP data.
Human populations seem to be roughly as divergent from each other as do north american canid populations, so if human subspecies don't exist, that implies that coyotes and all or almost all north american wolves are not only the same species, but the same subspecies
1 year ago
Anonymous
>Human populations seem to be roughly as divergent from each other as do north american canid populations
that's what's totally wrong, and has zero basis in reality
what you are probably referring to here is the difference between H. sapiens and very specific populations which have some admixture from previous species
H. sapiens itself has never diverged genetically into different populations at all
1 year ago
Anonymous
I mean thats your opinion, its just not correct.
There are 7 distinct species of human, easily identifiable with the naked eye, which were separated geographically but are now mixing (albeit very slowly). Also clearly a mixed species human shows outbreeding depression and lower physical health.
Thats WAY more difference than a lot of canids species.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Humans are too genetically similar for races to be considered different species, despite how they may look
1 year ago
Anonymous
>Humans are too genetically similar for races to be considered different species, despite how they may look
1 year ago
Anonymous
>There are 7 distinct species of human
There's one species of human, Homo sapiens, and two subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens, and Homo sapiens idaltu. Hell, I'm even willing to put the Khoisan and Pygmies as a third. Unless you think these two skulls are different species because they have different phenotypes
1 year ago
Anonymous
Humans are too genetically similar for races to be considered different species, despite how they may look
Youre failing to understand the problem. Humans are being classified with different requirements because some people get butthurt about it.
1. Applying the same requirements as all of the rest of life on earth, there are currently 7 species of humans. Thisnis the scientific view.
2. Being extremely biased for political reasons, and to save feelings, we can say there are 7 subspecies/races of human. This is the pseudoscientific view.
3. Applying the level 11 butthurt filter, we are all the same race even. The human race! Kumbaya! This is the critical theory socialist science view.
How far youre willing to go to dilute science for your own personal beliefs?
1 year ago
Anonymous
>1. Applying the same requirements as all of the rest of life on earth, there are currently 7 species of humans. Thisnis the scientific view.
These requirements are not static. In the past, it was thought that the modern lion, the cave lion, and the American lion were all the same species, just different subspecies, and that the modern lion in particular was comprised of over 5 different subspecies. We now agree that the cave and American lion are two separate species, and that the modern lion only has two subspecies, one found in Eastern and Southern Africa, and another found in West Africa, India, formerly North Africa, and possibly Europe if the lions that migrated into Europe after the cave lion are the same animals as the Barbary lions.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>These requirements are not static.
Yes just like we used to believe in the fraudulent out of africa hypothesis but now know it is complete bunk. Hopefully soon the static status quo will end and cringy losers will stop crying about muh ruhsusm, so we can finally classify humans correctly. I, for one, dont think it matters if blacks are called a different culture, race, or species, people who hate them will still do so.
Just like every time we invent a new word for mental disability, it starts being used for an insult, and we have to invent YET ANOTHER word (stupid, idiot, moron, retard, disabled). These excessively "sensitive" lines in the sand are not for anyones except but the pearl clutching weaklings who use transgression over the imaginary line as a sociopolitical cudgel. Because they have no other power.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>Yes just like we used to believe in the fraudulent out of africa hypothesis but now know it is complete bunk.
t. Robert Sepehr. Read this
https://i.imgur.com/WAowNEt.png
Are you copying Robert Sepehr? He said the exact same thing about said archaic hominins, even though the LCA of this particular species that interbred with West Africans (and to a lesser extent the ancestors of Eurasians, who DO have this ancestry, as the earliest admixture date was 124kya) and us existed between 360kya-1.02 mya, or a general mean estimate of about 600kya. This is the same divergence gap between us, Neanderthals, and Denisovans, though Neanderthals and Denisovans are now thought to have potentially split from us even earlier, around 800kya.
If it was Homo erectus or even Homo habilis, the DNA would be considered superarchaic, and MUCH older than even 1.02 mya. It wouldn't be Homo erectus because they were extinct in Africa by the time Homo sapiens evolved, and it certainly wouldn't be Homo habilis because they died out 1.65 mya, and would have a much older LCA estimate than that. Fact of the matter is, Homo sapiens in Africa is the same species as Homo sapiens elsewhere, just with more admixture from a different species of human that could potentially be closer to us than we are to Neanderthals. My guess would be Homo bodoensis, as that species lived in Africa from as far back as 750kya to as recently as 130kya.
1 year ago
Anonymous
I read it, nothing there suggests the baseless hypothesis is true.
https://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=19566
So after Gorillas then Orangutans we are the biggest primates right?
Orangutans are difficult though because they seem VERY close to us in size and only adult males seem to surpass average human size so it's hard to call.
Well yeah we're the tallest on two legs because we're literally designed to be on them all the time, like
So after Gorillas then Orangutans we are the biggest primates right?
Orangutans are difficult though because they seem VERY close to us in size and only adult males seem to surpass average human size so it's hard to call.
implies though, in terms of weight, gorillas and sometimes male pongos have us beat. Regardless OP is still technically right depending on what you define as "megafauna", I know of the definitions is just "animal that weighs over 100 lbs"
humans, even the strongest, are generally quite weak compared to silverbacks and dominant orangutans
why do people only treat chimps and bonobos as seperate species when other apes have subspecies as well?
well, they are different species, not subspecies, but it's true that there are different species of gorilla and orangutan too, so your point stands
I think it has to do with perceived difference, as far as I can gather the behavioral difference between bonobos and chimpanzees is great than that between any of the gorillas
orangutans are a bit different though, since Bornean orangutans have some very clearly distinct behavioral patterns compared to the two species living on Sumatra, but I guess it's because they are less studied than chimpanzees, and less known too
Good points. I'd like to add that chimp species have more recognizable visual differences and that their behavioural differences heavily tie in with human views of morality.
Maybe it would help if we gave pongo and gorilla species unique names.
also, as for: >Maybe it would help if we gave pongo and gorilla species unique names.
in a similar style to "orang hutan" meaning "forest person", perhaps we could refer to the more ground-dwelling orangutans of Borneo as "ground person", "orang darat" (contracted to "orangdarat" in English), and to the more tree-dwelling Tapanuli orangutans (thought to be exclusively arboreal as far as I know) of Sumatra as "tree person", or "orang pohon" (contracted to "orangpohon" in English), and the "standard" Sumatran orangutan (P. abelii) retaining the name "orangutan", with all of them being collectively referred to as Wauf's endearing term for them, i.e. their genus name, namely simply as pongos
in other words we'd end up with three species of pongo (uncapitalized to distinguish it from when used as a genus name, although both could be used in this particular sentence), the orangutan, the orangdarat, and the orangpohon
That has some merit but they're still not completely seperate names. ''Chimpanzee'' and ''bonobo'' are impossible to get mixed up. Let's for a start call bornean orangutans Bornobros.
1 year ago
Anonymous
kek
not a bad suggestion, but unlikely to be accepted by the scientific community at large
1 year ago
Anonymous
Scientifically they're already a seperate species. It's more about creating a viral pop-science effect.
no
>this entire thread
imagine not being able to disprove that aliens force evolved humans
Wauf come on
Humans:
>hairless except for signalling tufts
>bipedal
>no penile bone
>long flipper feet
>webbed fingers and toes
>hydrodynamic nose cowling
>chin
>forehead housing prefrontal cortex (soul)
>s shaped spine for swimming
>smaller ribcage housing longer lung
>weaker muscles that can store more O2
>larger fat percentage for floating/buoyancy
>pruned fingertips for clinging to wet rock
>DIVING REFLEX present only in aquatic mammals
Chimps, Gorillas and others:
>none of this shit
Atlanteans interbred with aquatic aliens, and all humans with Atlantean lineage are semi aquatic. Noticably Africans and Asians lack some of these features.
imagine actually falling for all the pseudoscientific nonsense that is aquatic ape theory
except for signalling tufts
no, the hair retained in humans is not "signalling tufts"
all the great apes descend from an arboreal primate that was already bipedal, a crown hominoid that lived ~18-20 million years ago
it's rather chimpanzees and gorillas which evolved two very different forms of knuckle-walking as they descended to the ground, while humans retained their bipedalism
pic related
>>no penile bone
humans have no need for one due to our sexual behavior
>>long flipper feet
fingers and toes
not even remotely true
nose cowling
couldn't be further from the truth either
in fact, humans have the least hydrodynamic/aerodynamic nose of all the great apes
>>chin
exactly the opposite of what you'd expect with your nonsensical hypothesis
also, most likely due to how it provides more space for the tongue and lips, so that it's easier to vocalize more precisely
housing prefrontal cortex (soul)
>>(soul)
again, >>>/x/ is that way
>>s shaped spine for swimming
sure, let's just put "for swimming" behind every anatomical trait humans have, that will prove your point
the s-shaped spine exists because we spend extended periods standing up, it's a form of compression
ribcage housing longer lung
you forgot to add "for swimming"
muscles that can store more O2
more O2
wtf am I even reading at this point?
fat percentage for floating/buoyancy
yeah, definitely doesn't have anything to do with the survival advantage that confers outside of the natural human habitat where we evolved (the rainforest), and where food was much more infrequent
fingertips for clinging to wet rock
applies to many primates, even macaques
this is to maintain climbing grip even when it's wet, it's primarily for trees, not rocks
imagine suggesting humans clinging to rocks in water
nice try, but really just stupid
>also, most likely due to how it provides more space for the tongue and lips, so that it's easier to vocalize more precisely
Don't forget the fact that Homo sapiens and (maybe) Homo antecessor are the only members of Homo with chins. If chins are supposedly a result of being semi-aquatic at one point, then why don't Neanderthals, Denisovans, coastal Homo erectus, and other species of humans have them?
because they obviously didn't have the privilege of being cross-bred with dolphins by Atlanteans
duh
>because they obviously didn't have the privilege of being cross-bred with dolphins by Atlanteans
>duh
You arent thinking this through, you arent applying your intellect.
If you walked into a forest full of foxes, would you be able to breed with them immediately? Clearly not. You would need to use artificial means to humanize them. These artificial antorpomorphized foxes could then be bred with to produce the first true hybrids. And then these hybrids would probably change as they breed with others.
Other hominins are clearly the artificially elevated types, and humans are the direct hybrids that an alien got by fucking neanderthals or similar.
>no, the hair retained in humans is not "signalling tufts"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5586851/Expressive-eyebrows-helped-early-humans-survive-helped-express-emotion-scientists-say.html
Beaten 1:0
>all the great apes descend from an arboreal primate that was already bipedal, a crown hominoid that lived ~18-20 million years ago
Yeah or dinosaurs 100s of million years ago, hominins and chimps evolved from a quadruped 4mya
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047248420301597
Defeated 2:0
>humans have no need for one due to our sexual behavior
What is this lamarckianism?
Raped 3:0
>long flipper feet
>webbed fingers and toes
>not even remotely true
/looks down at feet/
/looks at hands/
Pillaged 4:0
>hydrodynamic nose cowling
>couldn't be further from the truth either
/looks in mirror/
Burned 5:0
>forehead housing prefrontal cortex (soul)
Imagine not knowing about souls, what an uneducated idiot.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prefrontal_cortex
>a person's will to live
>personality
>planning
>decision making
>moderating social behavior
>differentiate among conflicting thoughts
>determine good and bad, better and best, same and different
>future consequences of current activities
>prediction of outcomes
>concrete rule learning
>higher levels of abstraction.
Yeah imagine an animal without this and convince me it has a soul. Or dont, since you cantnimagine things and you lack a prefrontal cortex.
Decimated 6:0
>the s-shaped spine exists because we spend extended periods standing up, it's a form of compression
Yeah like how all bipedal animals have s shaped spines. I remember t-rex has an s shaped spine, and ostritches have an s shaped spine. Hey why do dolphins have an S-shaped spine? All that standing around at dolphin parties???
Genocide 7:0
eyebrows are not the only patch of hair we have left, retard
1-0 me
humans didn't evolve from dinosaurs, retard
and now, we didn't evolve from a quadruped, I showed you clearly how we actually evolved
2-0 me
pointing out that our sexual behavior doesn't necessitate a baculum is not Lamarckianism, clearly you don't even know what that means
3-0 me
I look at human feet and hands all the time, including my own, they are not "flipper-shaped", nor do they have webbing
4-0 me
and again, human noses are the least hydrodynamic/aerodynamic of all the great apes, and primates in general
5-0 me
and no, higher cognitive capacities are not a "soul", >>>/x/ is that way
6-0 me
and comparing humans to other bipedal animals is retarded, because the examples of birds (and their predecessors, dinosaurs), don't stand upright in the same way we do at all, their spines are aligned primarily horizontally rather than vertically
imagine being that retarded
7-0 me
nice try, though
try again
>provide a link showing im right
>HU UH HUH OH HUH MAN OH HUH NOT ALSO ASS HAIR!
kek
Eyebrows are for direct signaling in murky waters, top of head hair is multivariant (signals health for example), pubic hair is also a signal to help find sexual organs underwater.... The only hair thing you can say is not, is sparse regular body hair, that is designed to wick off moisture from the skin.
Not going to read the rest since you cant even be arsed to reply to a source I worked FOR YOU to find with respect, why should I put in more effort when Im clearly right.
>Eyebrows are for direct signaling in murky waters
>pubic hair is also a signal to help find sexual organs underwater...
>you forgot to add "for swimming"
Longer lungs can be compressed easier for diving. A large ribcage would prevent compresison of lung, leading to too much buoyancy and nitrogen toxicity as you dive. As you dive the volume of air sack has to be compressed to provide neutral pressure to the blood.
Gloved slap 8:0
>weaker muscles that can store more O2
>wtf am I even reading at this point?
Things you dont understand clearly. The same heme in red blood cells is also present in muscles, the more heme a muscle has the more oxygen it can store. Human skeletal muscles tend to be type I slow twitch, with largest amount of heme. Ape muscles are type IIA fast twitch, type IIB glycolytic or type IIX anaerobic muscles. As a fraction of body weight, humans have 3x more heme in skeletal muscles than in the actual circulatory system. The same value for great apes is 1/2 of total circulatory volume.
Rectal apocalypse 9:0
>survival advantage that confers
Again lamarckianism. We didnt move into odd environments and then evolve to live there. We gained an inherent advantage and THEN had thenoption of moving to different environments.
Annihilation 10:0
>imagine suggesting humans clinging to rocks in water
Imagine suggesting 100-200lb humans cling to rainy branches just with their fingertips fucking lol. A buoyant animal in water clinging to river bed with fingertips makes way more sense.
Round 11:0
Ding ding ding
Verdict: ULTIMATE VICTORY
you can claim pretty much anything and make it "for swimming"
longer lungs can have literally a zillion other functions, such as increasing our aerobic capacity
8-0 me
marginally more myoglobin just serves to underpin that point, that we're generally better adapted to aerobic behavior, such as walking long distances
9-0 me
also, you repeatedly call natural selection "Lamarckianism", continuing to prove that you have zero idea what that is
yes, we absolutely did move into odd environments and had to adapt to life there, that started when we moved out of our natural habitat, the tropical equatorial rainforest, and out onto the savannah
at that point people who stored fat more easily got naturally selected for
learn basic evolutionary biology, retard
10-0 me
and yes, most of the grip is ultimately derived from the fingertips, you clearly have never gone climbing or bouldering, or you'd know that people even specialize in doing holds where they can literally only access with their fingertips
typical ignorant retard
11-0 me
verdict: you're a retard, but we already knew that
Dogs and horses have souls.
We wuz aquatic apes n shieet
>We wuz aquatic apes n shieet
Thats his slander, not what I said. Aquatic ape is a bullshit lamarckian hypothesis that humans first moved next to coast and rivers and changed to have aquatic features to better survive later. This is obviously insane and not how evolution works.
What I said, very clearly, is that aliens hybridized their genome with great apes, which resulted in humans. These humans, being more suited to aquatic life, THEN moved to coasts and rivers.
Please dont misrepresent my argument or try to create a strawman to make it look bad.
>Humans are megafaunal apes
If you actually are dumb enough to believe in uninterupted random evolution.
let me guess, the moron brigade is over from /misc/?
there's nothing "random" about evolution itself
the only aspect of evolution that can be said to be "random" is natural variation, which contains both random and non-random variables
that doesn't mean the actual process of natural selection is random, because the most advantageous traits end up conferring a benefit for the survivability and reproductive success of specific individuals
Let me guess the Current Thing© followers are over from redit?
Humans are clearly hybridized with aliens, and the closer the hybridization is, the more obvious it is.
Someone please explain to me the new theories as to hominid evolution, specifically the new alternative to the "out of africa" theory. Growing up I had been told that homo sapiens originated in Africa and migrated out where some interbred with existing Neanderthal populations, and that explanation makes sense to me.
there aren't any alternate explanations that make sense at all, and I have no idea why that explanation doesn't make sense to you, it makes perfect sense based on everything we know
however, the points made about certain people from sub-Saharan Africa having more admixture from previous species still stands, the same is true to a lesser extent for some people in Southeast Asia and Oceania
never mind, I read what you wrote as "makes no sense to me"
I see now that you said it does in fact make sense to you
so yes, it does indeed make sense, and it still makes sense, still the best explanation we have
>apes
Why do you guys use extreme examples to say "see they all look like this"? That's like if a hotep used this image and called white people pale gorillas or something like that.
please look at
>sharing dna with our big brained muscular chad relatives
based israelites
not really, we are small and weak compared to other extant apes and shit like gigantopithecus
False
why do people only treat chimps and bonobos as seperate species when other apes have subspecies as well?
Because one fucks
Because taxonomists are weird. A fish with an extra stripe or a wolf of a slightly different size or coat can be a different subspecies but humans and other apes can't.
Because if something as simple as body patterns was enough to deviate great apes then it will fracture human races into (sub)species. Yeah we can procreate with eachother. So can wolves with dogs with coyotes. A lot of people would be upset by that.
>So can wolves with dogs with coyotes.
Wolves and coyotes diverged from each other millions of years ago, whereas you diverged from a Nigerian (assuming you're not black lol) 70,000 years ago.
Other apes have different species outright. The three orangutan species (which are all critically endangered) all diverged from each other millions of years ago too, but it took us a long time to realize that they were that distinct. Modern humans are the only species of great ape with no other relatives in our genus, as Neanderthals and other species died out.
>you diverged from a Nigerian (assuming you're not black lol) 70,000 years ago
Out of Africa theory has taken quite a bit of fire recently with the “ghost ancestor” dna studies. The cro magnon/homo sapiens ancestors of Africans traveled South into Africa and met and crossbred with existing populations of one or several archaic hominids (possibly homo erectus or homo habilis). This suggests that Africans are distinct and not neat representatives of the ancestors of other human populations as previously believed.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-science-ghost-idUSKBN2072X9
It was homo capensis, the creators of whypeeple.
Are you copying Robert Sepehr? He said the exact same thing about said archaic hominins, even though the LCA of this particular species that interbred with West Africans (and to a lesser extent the ancestors of Eurasians, who DO have this ancestry, as the earliest admixture date was 124kya) and us existed between 360kya-1.02 mya, or a general mean estimate of about 600kya. This is the same divergence gap between us, Neanderthals, and Denisovans, though Neanderthals and Denisovans are now thought to have potentially split from us even earlier, around 800kya.
If it was Homo erectus or even Homo habilis, the DNA would be considered superarchaic, and MUCH older than even 1.02 mya. It wouldn't be Homo erectus because they were extinct in Africa by the time Homo sapiens evolved, and it certainly wouldn't be Homo habilis because they died out 1.65 mya, and would have a much older LCA estimate than that. Fact of the matter is, Homo sapiens in Africa is the same species as Homo sapiens elsewhere, just with more admixture from a different species of human that could potentially be closer to us than we are to Neanderthals. My guess would be Homo bodoensis, as that species lived in Africa from as far back as 750kya to as recently as 130kya.
precisely correct on every single count
I don't understand this avenue. Why is time relevant for the discussion of speciation at all? Speciation occurs are drastically different times for every single species on earth, and hominins are known for sudden, high degrees of rate of change. The 1000 genomes project estimates h. sapien nucleotide diversity exists at around .4% for the furthest populations of humanity (we'll use west Africans and northern Europeans for this). This degree of nucleotide diversity is exactly the same that's present in chimps and Bonobos, and for them it is often cited as one of the arguments for their speciation, along with an inch difference in average height, pigmentation, among other traits that also exist between our two example populations of h. sapien, and even in greater extents such as skull morphology. Time is also irrelevant because there are a plethora of other species that have undergone speciation well under 80-70ky. The precedents in the taxonomic system are there in abundance, and ironically it's west Africans than seem to be the black (lol) sheep in this case. If this was any other species, biologists would be clawing at eachother to announce the speciation first. Now, does this really mean that Africans and Siberians are a seperate species? Or is it just a glaring issue with the taxonomic system? I dunno, it's up to you, for me? Yeah, I'd say so, I don't think that's a bad thing either, I don't think it implies a degree of superiority of one over the other, it's just a recognition of the large degree of diversity that exists within humanity that we already knew existed.
>you diverged from a Nigerian
africans came from caucasoids
>africans came from caucasoids
"Caucasoids" as a cranial phenotype is more recent than "Blackid" as a phenotype. What IS true is that West and East Africans have admixture from West Eurasians (not as much in West Africans but certain populations have up to 18% West Eurasian ancestry like the Fula, and the paternal haplogroups in West Africans are related to the ones found in North African and some Middle Eastern and Greek haplogroups, while in Chad and Cameroon, R1b is pretty common), but both are relatively new in comparison to ancient Homo sapiens, which looked nothing like modern Africans or West Eurasians.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.1501714
Humans diverged from each other, by your own estimation, 20k years before distinct populations of coyote and north american wolves, and would in any reasonable world be considered to be made up of various subspecies
Homo sapiens has never diverged into different species at all, H. sapiens is one very distinct species of human
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.1501714
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4687486/
>North American gray wolf–Great Lakes wolves, FST = 0.057; coyote–Great Lakes region wolf, FST = 0.045; North American gray wolf–red wolf, FST = 0.177; coyote–red wolf, FST = 0.108
>The short answer is that the estimate of FST among human populations sampled from these regions is 0.05 for the microsatellite data and 0.10 for the SNP data.
Human populations seem to be roughly as divergent from each other as do north american canid populations, so if human subspecies don't exist, that implies that coyotes and all or almost all north american wolves are not only the same species, but the same subspecies
>Human populations seem to be roughly as divergent from each other as do north american canid populations
that's what's totally wrong, and has zero basis in reality
what you are probably referring to here is the difference between H. sapiens and very specific populations which have some admixture from previous species
H. sapiens itself has never diverged genetically into different populations at all
I mean thats your opinion, its just not correct.
There are 7 distinct species of human, easily identifiable with the naked eye, which were separated geographically but are now mixing (albeit very slowly). Also clearly a mixed species human shows outbreeding depression and lower physical health.
Thats WAY more difference than a lot of canids species.
Humans are too genetically similar for races to be considered different species, despite how they may look
>Humans are too genetically similar for races to be considered different species, despite how they may look
>There are 7 distinct species of human
There's one species of human, Homo sapiens, and two subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens, and Homo sapiens idaltu. Hell, I'm even willing to put the Khoisan and Pygmies as a third. Unless you think these two skulls are different species because they have different phenotypes
Youre failing to understand the problem. Humans are being classified with different requirements because some people get butthurt about it.
1. Applying the same requirements as all of the rest of life on earth, there are currently 7 species of humans. Thisnis the scientific view.
2. Being extremely biased for political reasons, and to save feelings, we can say there are 7 subspecies/races of human. This is the pseudoscientific view.
3. Applying the level 11 butthurt filter, we are all the same race even. The human race! Kumbaya! This is the critical theory socialist science view.
How far youre willing to go to dilute science for your own personal beliefs?
>1. Applying the same requirements as all of the rest of life on earth, there are currently 7 species of humans. Thisnis the scientific view.
These requirements are not static. In the past, it was thought that the modern lion, the cave lion, and the American lion were all the same species, just different subspecies, and that the modern lion in particular was comprised of over 5 different subspecies. We now agree that the cave and American lion are two separate species, and that the modern lion only has two subspecies, one found in Eastern and Southern Africa, and another found in West Africa, India, formerly North Africa, and possibly Europe if the lions that migrated into Europe after the cave lion are the same animals as the Barbary lions.
>These requirements are not static.
Yes just like we used to believe in the fraudulent out of africa hypothesis but now know it is complete bunk. Hopefully soon the static status quo will end and cringy losers will stop crying about muh ruhsusm, so we can finally classify humans correctly. I, for one, dont think it matters if blacks are called a different culture, race, or species, people who hate them will still do so.
Just like every time we invent a new word for mental disability, it starts being used for an insult, and we have to invent YET ANOTHER word (stupid, idiot, moron, retard, disabled). These excessively "sensitive" lines in the sand are not for anyones except but the pearl clutching weaklings who use transgression over the imaginary line as a sociopolitical cudgel. Because they have no other power.
>Yes just like we used to believe in the fraudulent out of africa hypothesis but now know it is complete bunk.
t. Robert Sepehr. Read this
I read it, nothing there suggests the baseless hypothesis is true.
https://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=19566
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ece3.7757
The ancestors of the wolf and coyote as a whole diverged 1-2 million years ago.
So after Gorillas then Orangutans we are the biggest primates right?
Orangutans are difficult though because they seem VERY close to us in size and only adult males seem to surpass average human size so it's hard to call.
Well yeah we're the tallest on two legs because we're literally designed to be on them all the time, like
implies though, in terms of weight, gorillas and sometimes male pongos have us beat. Regardless OP is still technically right depending on what you define as "megafauna", I know of the definitions is just "animal that weighs over 100 lbs"
>animal that weighs over 100 lbs
So, americans
bruh my balls weigh that
humans, even the strongest, are generally quite weak compared to silverbacks and dominant orangutans
well, they are different species, not subspecies, but it's true that there are different species of gorilla and orangutan too, so your point stands
I think it has to do with perceived difference, as far as I can gather the behavioral difference between bonobos and chimpanzees is great than that between any of the gorillas
orangutans are a bit different though, since Bornean orangutans have some very clearly distinct behavioral patterns compared to the two species living on Sumatra, but I guess it's because they are less studied than chimpanzees, and less known too
Good points. I'd like to add that chimp species have more recognizable visual differences and that their behavioural differences heavily tie in with human views of morality.
Maybe it would help if we gave pongo and gorilla species unique names.
yep, entirely agreed on both points
back to
you go
>Humans are clearly hybridized with aliens, and the closer the hybridization is, the more obvious it is.
scratch that, back to >>>/x/ you go
also, as for:
>Maybe it would help if we gave pongo and gorilla species unique names.
in a similar style to "orang hutan" meaning "forest person", perhaps we could refer to the more ground-dwelling orangutans of Borneo as "ground person", "orang darat" (contracted to "orangdarat" in English), and to the more tree-dwelling Tapanuli orangutans (thought to be exclusively arboreal as far as I know) of Sumatra as "tree person", or "orang pohon" (contracted to "orangpohon" in English), and the "standard" Sumatran orangutan (P. abelii) retaining the name "orangutan", with all of them being collectively referred to as Wauf's endearing term for them, i.e. their genus name, namely simply as pongos
in other words we'd end up with three species of pongo (uncapitalized to distinguish it from when used as a genus name, although both could be used in this particular sentence), the orangutan, the orangdarat, and the orangpohon
That has some merit but they're still not completely seperate names. ''Chimpanzee'' and ''bonobo'' are impossible to get mixed up. Let's for a start call bornean orangutans Bornobros.
kek
not a bad suggestion, but unlikely to be accepted by the scientific community at large
Scientifically they're already a seperate species. It's more about creating a viral pop-science effect.
we are still absolutely massive when compared to non-megafauna creatures and about the same size with many other greater carnivores.
WTF am I reading? Almost every ungulates mogs us in terms of strength.
Reminder he had 6 shoulder surgeries.
All great apes are megafauna.
Humans are fags but imagine neanderthal bodybuilders
Imagine a gorilla bodybuilder