Homo Sapiens are NOT 100% Homo Sapiens..... (2013)

[TheDragonslayer]

Originally Posted by Michigantown

The other subspecies Homo sapiens idaltu went extinct 160000 years ago.

I just read about that one too. It is amazing how many of us that there were on this planet at one time, sharing and competing for resources which only fueled further evolution of our species.

[Timing2012]

Originally Posted by TheDragonslayer

The Aborigines of Australia are pretty much what Denisovans and Neanderthals looked like, maybe hairier and less forehead and chin, plus shorter and stouter.

Are you saying that Aborigines are less evolved than some of us?

[desertdetroiter]

Originally Posted by residinghere2007

Very true. As stated previously in this short thread, we humans can procreate with each other. If we could not, then we would be seperate species and of a different race other than the human race.

The social construct of race as it pertains to skin color/shade and specific regional origins is a racial construct created in order to subjugate and/or justify the mistreatment of specifica groups of humans on other groups of humans. And FWIW, this is not just a European vs the world sort of thing too, even though Europeans did it on a greater extent in the modern era. But over the course of human history, other humans have conquered and destroyed civilizations under the justification that their specific culture of humans were "different" mostly greater than the others that they were conquering. That was just as much of a social construct as our modern day "racial" issues which were primarily based on the quest to deem non-western Europeans as "less than" as can be easily seen in the justification for slavery in the Americas, the colonization of Asia, Africa, and Australia and portrayed in various literatures, most notably "The White Man's Burden" by Kipling.

Spot on.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by residinghere2007

Very true. As stated previously in this short thread, we humans can procreate with each other. If we could not, then we would be seperate species and of a different race other than the human race.

Originally Posted by desertdetroiter

Spot on.

That's wrong.

It's a myth, but hey, thanks for spreading misinformation.

Originally Posted by Packard fan

Uh; then those different frogs are the SAME species. Sheesh!

Did you bother to read the National Geographic article?

No, you didn't.

It's National Geographic, not Stormfront.

Species can interbreed....that has always been true since life existed on Earth.

If you cannot understand that, then no one can help you.

Interbreeding Threatens Rare Species, Experts Say

More excerpts from the same National Geographic article proving that you are out of your league here and lack the knowledge to discuss the subject matter rationally and without prejudice or bigotry....

There are many examples. On the Indonesian island of Sulawesi, all seven species of macaque monkey interbreed where their territories overlap, but natural selection seems to be keeping the situation in check: the hybrids are not as hardy as their purebred parents

*****

There are more: Mallards ducks are interbreeding other ducks out of existence in New Zealand and Hawaii. In the U.S., threatened golden wing warblers are breeding with blue winged warblers and endangered cutthroat trout are crossbreeding with rainbow trout.

Originally Posted by Packard fan

Back in the day some people thought Black and white people were different species. LOL!

Based on the evidence, the facts suggest they are....and this is the 21st Century.

The facts suggest that Aboriginoids, Caucasoids, Mongoloids and Negroids arose or evolved separately.

If Truth offends you, then gouge out your eyes.

Originally Posted by Timing2012

Are you saying that Aborigines are less evolved than some of us?

And what if that were true?

The lower sea levels resulted in the ability of many groups to migrate to areas, such as Australia.

Once sea levels rise.....uh, apparently due to Man-made Global Warming....the Australian Aborigines would have been cut-off and isolated from other humanoid species, with the result being from that point forward, they had no opportunity to interbreed with other humanoid species.

Originally Posted by TheDragonslayer

I just read about that one too. It is amazing how many of us that there were on this planet at one time, sharing and competing for resources which only fueled further evolution of our species.

Indeed.

Originally Posted by CDusr

Some interesting stuff.
Sequencing of Neanderthal Toe Bone Reveals Unknown Hominin ...
quote:
An analysis of the relationships and population history of available archaic genomes and 25 present-day human genomes shows that several gene flow events occurred among Neanderthals, Denisovans and early modern humans, possibly including gene flow into Denisovans from an unknown archaic group. Thus, interbreeding, albeit of low magnitude, occurred among many hominin groups in the Late Pleistocene. In addition, the high-quality Neanderthal genome allows us to establish a definitive list of substitutions that became fixed in modern humans after their separation from the ancestors of Neanderthals and Denisovans.

It is interesting.

We'll eventually learn the Truth, in spite of the Politically Correct nutters.

Originally Posted by TheDragonslayer

Our genus came out of Africa several times in advancing waves with overlapping species. Homo erectus existed from 1.8 million years to only 143,000 years ago and us fully anatomically modern humans first appeared in Africa 195,000 years ago, more than seven different species of us humans existed at one time together in time on the planet and we are the last surving species with remnant DNA of the other species in our DNA.

The evidence disputes that.

The evidence more and more supports what others and I have always maintained, and that is species evolved separately from different sources.

This is Normal Earth......





...and as you can see, it is somewhat inhospitable.

However, it is normal....and that is the important point. The climate you are experiencing now is abnormal, because you are in the midst of an Inter-Glacial Period, which will end, and soon (geologically speaking).

And this will only get worse.

As the mid-Atlantic Ridge expands, the Atlantic Ocean will widen, with the Pacific Ocean simultaneously shrinking, and it is possible that from Time Point X, there will be no more Inter-Glacial Periods.

One, possibly two species arose in Africa, while one or more species gave rise in Asia. As those species migrated, they interbred, giving rise to more species of humanoids.

Consider Click-Languages.

They exist only in one place on Earth, and that is southern Africa. Earlier hominid species did not have the FPS2 Gene -- they were not capable of speech, but they could communicate by making clicking noises with their tongue.

Are the Xhosa and other tribes in southern Africa modern versions of Homo Erectus, Homo Habilis or others?

No, we can rule that out, since they did not have the Speech Gene. However, it is possible that other hominid species with the Speech Gene interbred with Homo Erectus, Homo Habilis or others, and retained the clicking noises in their spoken language.

It's also possible that more archaic versions of hominids survived into very recent times, and had contact with more evolved hominid groups, perhaps through limited trade, and those groups who eventually grew to tribal status like the Xhosa, continued to incorporate the clicking noises in their speech.

The "Big Crunch" was circa 23,000 BCE when cannibalism was rampant in locations of humanoid habitation, due to the severity of the harsh climate. And then cannibalism was rampant again circa 15,000 up to the start of this abnormal Inter-Glacial Period.

I'd imagine a lot of hominid species going extinct during those times (like Neanderthal).

Anthropologically....

Mircea

[Timing2012]

Originally Posted by Mircea

We'll eventually learn the Truth, in spite of the Politically Correct nutters.


Mircea

When? Within a decade from now? In 2075 when most of us are gone?

[TheDragonslayer]

Originally Posted by Timing2012

Are you saying that Aborigines are less evolved than some of us?

No, just that they show many of the characteristics facially of Neanderthals and Denisovans. There are also people in the Ural mountain region in Eurasia that have some of the facial characteristics. Neanderthals were not necessarily less evolved, just more robust and often had larger brains. Much like a Clydesdale horse is more robust than a quarter horse, but I guess it would be better to say a horse and a donkey.

[Packard fan]

Originally Posted by TheDragonslayer

No, just that they show many of the characteristics facially of Neanderthals and Denisovans. There are also people in the Ural mountain region in Eurasia that have some of the facial characteristics. Neanderthals were not necessarily less evolved, just more robust and often had larger brains. Much like a Clydesdale horse is more robust than a quarter horse, but I guess it would be better to say a horse and a donkey.

Female horse and donkey mean mule. Mules can't father anything. Horse and pony foal when grown up CAN have little ones.

[D-Towner]

Originally Posted by residinghere2007

Very true. As stated previously in this short thread, we humans can procreate with each other. If we could not, then we would be seperate species and of a different race other than the human race.

The social construct of race as it pertains to skin color/shade and specific regional origins is a racial construct created in order to subjugate and/or justify the mistreatment of specifica groups of humans on other groups of humans. And FWIW, this is not just a European vs the world sort of thing too, even though Europeans did it on a greater extent in the modern era. But over the course of human history, other humans have conquered and destroyed civilizations under the justification that their specific culture of humans were "different" mostly greater than the others that they were conquering. That was just as much of a social construct as our modern day "racial" issues which were primarily based on the quest to deem non-western Europeans as "less than" as can be easily seen in the justification for slavery in the Americas, the colonization of Asia, Africa, and Australia and portrayed in various literatures, most notably "The White Man's Burden" by Kipling.

Take your bleeding heart nonsense elsewhere. The white folks who bring up race are generally liberals except for those who are talking about the modern phenomenon of black teenagers punching out older (mostly white) victims in the knockout game. I have not done anything to bring down anyone else, so don't blame me for past oppression.

[UrbanCrossroads]

We're all the same species but we're not the same race. I don't understand why political correctness dictates that "there's no such thing as race". All animal species on the planet have their own breeds (aka races). And guess what? We too are an animal species. But our species can't have races because it's simply un-politically correct to do so? Give me a break!

[Michigantown]

Originally Posted by Justme305

We're all the same species but we're not the same race. I don't understand why political correctness dictates that "there's no such thing as race". All animal species on the planet have their own breeds (aka races). And guess what? We too are an animal species. But our species can't have races because it's simply un-politically correct to do so? Give me a break!

No they don't.