I wonder how humanity would have turned out if we had an inferior hominid species that didn’t die out.
I think we would have run had the same script with them and would have had massive problems — slavery -> colonialism -> white human guilt -> mass immigration into successful white countries, massive transfer of wealth and status from whites to [hominid species].
Bushmen split from the rest of humanity before the appearance of modern Homo sapiens and they have no neanderthal or denisovan ancestry so an argument could be made that they are archaic humans. Same with Congo pygmies.
You'd be arguing with the entire paleoanthropology community.
As I understand it, modern humans, aka Homo Sapiens or Homo Sapiens Sapiens, is the term of art for bipedal apes whose skeletons fall within the range of present-day people. The first such skeleton known was found in Morocco and dates to about 300,000 years ago. The Bushmen, aka San or Khoisan, became reproductively isolated starting thousands of years after that. And the woman who is in every present-day human's family tree is thought to lived about 160,000 years ago.
So while there are modern Africans whose separate ancestry is very old, they are not in a class with true archaics such as the Neanderthals and Denisovans, who evolved in Eurasia long before modern humans existed, from even more archaic ancestors who lived in both Africa and Eurasia and who were also ancestors of us moderns. These include Homo Erectus, whose skeletons have been found across the Eurasian continent, dating to as much as 1,800,000 years ago, and who were known in my 1950's childhood by monikers like Peking Man and Java Man.
Modern non-Africans have a few percent Neanderthal and/or Denisovan DNA due to some intermixing after the moderns started spreading across Eurasia around 60,000 years ago, not because they are descended from them.
Sapiens is just a reference to man being able to speak. Not much different from the canonical Aramaic bible translation Targum Onkelos (2nd century CE) on Gen 2, where Adam goes live with "ruach memalela*" - which translates to speaking spirit.
By the way, we still don't know if Neandertals or Denisovans were able to speak...
*memalela CAN be translated as speaking, but it also has babbling and somehat slurring connotations. So more like "verbalizing spirit".
> Sapiens is just a reference to man being able to speak. <
Latin was no longer required by my Jesuit HS by the time I showed up, but I thought it directly means thinking, knowing, wise. I.e. wise man.
But speaking is probably the key behavioral check box anthropologists would point to. But anatomically Neanderthals seem to be capable of speaking. So we just do not know how much speech earlier humans had.
I took Latin in my non-jesuit high school and you are correct.
I read a convincing article once that claimed the key advantage humans have is not our intelligence but our culture. Language that can pass acquired wisdom down through the generations is more useful than problem solving ability. It lets you solve problems through natural selection.
Seems to me, if you have even 0.1% of some archaic species' DNA then you are by definition descended from that archaic species (as well as from your non-archaic 99.9%).
The hunters-gatherers of Southern Africa separation time has been estimated to be between 350 and 260,000 years ago and at the time H. sapiens like those of Morocco still had many archaic features to the extent that for decades were thought to be Neanderthal.
Genetic studies have shown that Pygmy populations in Africa diverged from other human lineages as far back as 60,000 years ago.
Fully modern humans of the gracile type and behavioral modernity appeared about 50,000 to 30,000 years ago that is after the splits with bushmen and pygmies.
What if lots of archaic and pre-archaic species were still around, so we had a fairly continuous gamut of species between us and the chimpanzees? What would that have implied for politics? Where would we have drawn the line between those with the right to vote and those without?
I think current development in W Europe goes more to reinaction of Bantustans. Citizenism as Steve Sailer defined it may be facing challenges some time in the near future.
Yeah Darwin looked like the type with whom you wouldn't want to get into a heated argument. My college wrestler/fullback WWII vet grandpa looked a lot like him.
But you have to admit that the artist drew a denisovan with gayface. Probably reflects his own fantasies more than reality.
Neanderthals also had a larger brain but it was the visual area that was more developed so they probably were not smarter. Despite Neanderthal better visual processing, stronger muscles and thicker bones the Cro-Magnon invading Ice Age Europe were saying “no matter what, we have the bow and they do not”
Artistic depictions of archaic men don't look that weird because there are many modern human men who like Darwin have a strong brow ridge while the lack of chin is hidden by the beard. Archaic woman and children look weirder because they also have a large brow ridge which we associate with men.
> I don't want the world to know; I don't want my heart to show
R.I.P. Lugee Alfredo Giovanni Sacco (82.3) who performed under the name Lou Christie. His first contract was under Morris Levy's Roulette Records but he eventually had hits with MGM Records as well
Went to college with someone who looked exactly like that picture. Clothing very similar also. He occasionally slept in a marsh (really). Hung out with a group of us. His nickname was "Big Guy".
DNA from 146,000 years ago is surprising outside of Siberia. Perhaps one day the Homo erectus genome will be sequenced.
In the 12-15 years since it was discovered that Europeans have 2-4% neanderthal DNA, and that Asians have 2-5% Denisovan, there have been so many follow up studies to try and determine what benefit (or costs) the modern humans acquired from that admixture.
In the 5 years since it was announced that West Africans have between 2% and 19% of their DNA from a species that is separated from the rest of humanity by as much as 1 million years there has been hardly any follow up at all.*
If you google 'West African Ghost Lineage' you get a bunch of mainstream media news articles from the week the study was published. That was in February 2020. (I suppose if the study had been finalized 6 months later it might never have been published at all.)
It's a shame that politics prevents further investigation into this fascinating theory.
*There was one follow up that claimed to have debunked the original paper, but John Hawks thinks it still holds up.
> It's a shame that politics prevents further investigation into this fascinating theory.
I really hope the reigning ideology ("Cultural Marxism" or whatever you want to call it) is not much longer for this life, and sanity and honesty can once again prevail. May seem permanently entrenched currently, but things can sometimes turn on a dime.
In my current thinking, common genetic traits are not proof of interbreeding, and tiny percentages do not prove significant common ancestry. To what other plants and animals to biologists tell us we share two percent of genetic characteristics? Is that all biologists or just some overly garrulous individual? What is the range of likely error? What do they mean by "percent" -- of what -- 30,000 genetic structures, billions?
> I think that Papuans and Aborigines differ from Homo sapiens and may be descended from Homo Erectus.<
You can think whatever you like. This tired old "multi-regional" co-evolution stuff has been clearly contra-evidence for the better part of a century. And now we have the DNA sequencing. Aborigines are Y-chromosome haplogroup K (widespread) and C (east Asia). Occam's Razor suggests the obvious--the far, far end of coastal route expansion of the big modern human wave 60,000 or so years ago.
People really need to get it through their heads: The wide diversity of humanity does not require "diverged millions of years ago" b.s. The most dramatic differences between various peoples are quite recent, with the most important--behavior and capability--radically altered in just the last 10,000 years since the neolithic dramatically changed the productive environment. Gene-culture co-evolution--very fast.
I realise it is somewhat trite but the portrait view always emphasises the humanity of a face-it is the 'lumper' view. I think we are unable to not seek expression in it in the way that anthropomorphized animal characters seem to speak to us. It is with the 3/4 view and profile that the humanity rapidly dissipates and one immediately finds oneself with the 'splitters'.
In profile, Rhys Davies, Darwin and Tom Homan (closest stand in for Keith Richard's bruiser bodyguard) are much of a muchness, others, including Harbie, not so much.
Meh. It’s a borderline case. Pushing back against woke insanity is one thing. Gratuitous use of terms most people today consider somewhat offensive does not help the cause of those who want to usher in a rational, scientific approach to understanding race differences. It just gets us thrust further into the category of malicious crank.
I see your point, but I don't think it's entirely gratuitous. It's pushing the Overton Window back a bit imho.
Chinaman was perfectly acceptable at one point, like Irishman and Frenchman still are. Using it helps to point out the hypersensitivity of the censorious left.
“We’re very lucky in the band in that we have two visionaries, David and Nigel, they’re like poets, like Shelley and Byron. They’re two distinct types of visionaries, it’s like fire and ice, basically. I feel my role in the band is to be somewhere in the middle of that, kind of like lukewarm water.” - Derek Smalls
I wonder how humanity would have turned out if we had an inferior hominid species that didn’t die out.
I think we would have run had the same script with them and would have had massive problems — slavery -> colonialism -> white human guilt -> mass immigration into successful white countries, massive transfer of wealth and status from whites to [hominid species].
Bushmen split from the rest of humanity before the appearance of modern Homo sapiens and they have no neanderthal or denisovan ancestry so an argument could be made that they are archaic humans. Same with Congo pygmies.
You'd be arguing with the entire paleoanthropology community.
As I understand it, modern humans, aka Homo Sapiens or Homo Sapiens Sapiens, is the term of art for bipedal apes whose skeletons fall within the range of present-day people. The first such skeleton known was found in Morocco and dates to about 300,000 years ago. The Bushmen, aka San or Khoisan, became reproductively isolated starting thousands of years after that. And the woman who is in every present-day human's family tree is thought to lived about 160,000 years ago.
So while there are modern Africans whose separate ancestry is very old, they are not in a class with true archaics such as the Neanderthals and Denisovans, who evolved in Eurasia long before modern humans existed, from even more archaic ancestors who lived in both Africa and Eurasia and who were also ancestors of us moderns. These include Homo Erectus, whose skeletons have been found across the Eurasian continent, dating to as much as 1,800,000 years ago, and who were known in my 1950's childhood by monikers like Peking Man and Java Man.
Modern non-Africans have a few percent Neanderthal and/or Denisovan DNA due to some intermixing after the moderns started spreading across Eurasia around 60,000 years ago, not because they are descended from them.
Ken
Homo Sapiens Sapiens? Wise wise man? Not in my experience.
Sapiens is just a reference to man being able to speak. Not much different from the canonical Aramaic bible translation Targum Onkelos (2nd century CE) on Gen 2, where Adam goes live with "ruach memalela*" - which translates to speaking spirit.
By the way, we still don't know if Neandertals or Denisovans were able to speak...
*memalela CAN be translated as speaking, but it also has babbling and somehat slurring connotations. So more like "verbalizing spirit".
> Sapiens is just a reference to man being able to speak. <
Latin was no longer required by my Jesuit HS by the time I showed up, but I thought it directly means thinking, knowing, wise. I.e. wise man.
But speaking is probably the key behavioral check box anthropologists would point to. But anatomically Neanderthals seem to be capable of speaking. So we just do not know how much speech earlier humans had.
I took Latin in my non-jesuit high school and you are correct.
I read a convincing article once that claimed the key advantage humans have is not our intelligence but our culture. Language that can pass acquired wisdom down through the generations is more useful than problem solving ability. It lets you solve problems through natural selection.
Seems to me, if you have even 0.1% of some archaic species' DNA then you are by definition descended from that archaic species (as well as from your non-archaic 99.9%).
That's one drop theory in action.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvsPCJe45qY
The hunters-gatherers of Southern Africa separation time has been estimated to be between 350 and 260,000 years ago and at the time H. sapiens like those of Morocco still had many archaic features to the extent that for decades were thought to be Neanderthal.
Genetic studies have shown that Pygmy populations in Africa diverged from other human lineages as far back as 60,000 years ago.
Fully modern humans of the gracile type and behavioral modernity appeared about 50,000 to 30,000 years ago that is after the splits with bushmen and pygmies.
Is this true? If donuts fascinating!
> "I wonder how humanity would have turned out if we had an inferior hominid species that didn’t die out"
Uh, we kinda do . . .
And it hasn't been turning out so well.
I am not going to laugh at that!
It was between that and "Who's going to tell him?".
that's even funnier. I am even more ashamed of myself for LOL
What if lots of archaic and pre-archaic species were still around, so we had a fairly continuous gamut of species between us and the chimpanzees? What would that have implied for politics? Where would we have drawn the line between those with the right to vote and those without?
I think current development in W Europe goes more to reinaction of Bantustans. Citizenism as Steve Sailer defined it may be facing challenges some time in the near future.
> I wonder how humanity would have turned out if we had an inferior hominid species that didn’t die out.
Reddit discussion-starter: "What if the new world was populated by neanderthals?"
https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryWhatIf/comments/1hkheqo/what_if_the_new_world_was_populated_by/
Yeah Darwin looked like the type with whom you wouldn't want to get into a heated argument. My college wrestler/fullback WWII vet grandpa looked a lot like him.
But you have to admit that the artist drew a denisovan with gayface. Probably reflects his own fantasies more than reality.
Neanderthals also had a larger brain but it was the visual area that was more developed so they probably were not smarter. Despite Neanderthal better visual processing, stronger muscles and thicker bones the Cro-Magnon invading Ice Age Europe were saying “no matter what, we have the bow and they do not”
Artistic depictions of archaic men don't look that weird because there are many modern human men who like Darwin have a strong brow ridge while the lack of chin is hidden by the beard. Archaic woman and children look weirder because they also have a large brow ridge which we associate with men.
> I don't want the world to know; I don't want my heart to show
R.I.P. Lugee Alfredo Giovanni Sacco (82.3) who performed under the name Lou Christie. His first contract was under Morris Levy's Roulette Records but he eventually had hits with MGM Records as well
Italian-Americans had a strong hold on popular music until the Beatles. Lou Christie is just one of many.
Sure, Elvis Preslini, Chuck Berrio and Brian Wilsoni spring to mind.
I'll join you and the Gypsy in shedding a tear. A great proponent of the falsetto and maker of some absolute doo wop gems. R.I.P.
The first photo looks like Lyle Alzado but I am dating myself. The third photo looks a little like Charlie himself.
Went to college with someone who looked exactly like that picture. Clothing very similar also. He occasionally slept in a marsh (really). Hung out with a group of us. His nickname was "Big Guy".
I think he got work in some GEICO commercials a few years ago.
DNA from 146,000 years ago is surprising outside of Siberia. Perhaps one day the Homo erectus genome will be sequenced.
In the 12-15 years since it was discovered that Europeans have 2-4% neanderthal DNA, and that Asians have 2-5% Denisovan, there have been so many follow up studies to try and determine what benefit (or costs) the modern humans acquired from that admixture.
In the 5 years since it was announced that West Africans have between 2% and 19% of their DNA from a species that is separated from the rest of humanity by as much as 1 million years there has been hardly any follow up at all.*
If you google 'West African Ghost Lineage' you get a bunch of mainstream media news articles from the week the study was published. That was in February 2020. (I suppose if the study had been finalized 6 months later it might never have been published at all.)
It's a shame that politics prevents further investigation into this fascinating theory.
*There was one follow up that claimed to have debunked the original paper, but John Hawks thinks it still holds up.
> It's a shame that politics prevents further investigation into this fascinating theory.
I really hope the reigning ideology ("Cultural Marxism" or whatever you want to call it) is not much longer for this life, and sanity and honesty can once again prevail. May seem permanently entrenched currently, but things can sometimes turn on a dime.
Why was Siberia the cradle of civilization back then?
In my current thinking, common genetic traits are not proof of interbreeding, and tiny percentages do not prove significant common ancestry. To what other plants and animals to biologists tell us we share two percent of genetic characteristics? Is that all biologists or just some overly garrulous individual? What is the range of likely error? What do they mean by "percent" -- of what -- 30,000 genetic structures, billions?
I think that Papuans and Aborigines differ from Homo sapiens and may be descended from Homo Erectus.
https://www.medienwerkstatt-online.de/lws_wissen/vorlagen/showcard.php?id=34752#google_vignette
Aborigines are definitely Cromagnon, they speak, and do cave drawings. I don't much like H.sapiens nomenclature, I would prefer H.cromagnon.
> I think that Papuans and Aborigines differ from Homo sapiens and may be descended from Homo Erectus.<
You can think whatever you like. This tired old "multi-regional" co-evolution stuff has been clearly contra-evidence for the better part of a century. And now we have the DNA sequencing. Aborigines are Y-chromosome haplogroup K (widespread) and C (east Asia). Occam's Razor suggests the obvious--the far, far end of coastal route expansion of the big modern human wave 60,000 or so years ago.
People really need to get it through their heads: The wide diversity of humanity does not require "diverged millions of years ago" b.s. The most dramatic differences between various peoples are quite recent, with the most important--behavior and capability--radically altered in just the last 10,000 years since the neolithic dramatically changed the productive environment. Gene-culture co-evolution--very fast.
I realise it is somewhat trite but the portrait view always emphasises the humanity of a face-it is the 'lumper' view. I think we are unable to not seek expression in it in the way that anthropomorphized animal characters seem to speak to us. It is with the 3/4 view and profile that the humanity rapidly dissipates and one immediately finds oneself with the 'splitters'.
In profile, Rhys Davies, Darwin and Tom Homan (closest stand in for Keith Richard's bruiser bodyguard) are much of a muchness, others, including Harbie, not so much.
That's great.
I admire your boldness in using the term "Chinaman" to refer to a man from China.
Meh. It’s a borderline case. Pushing back against woke insanity is one thing. Gratuitous use of terms most people today consider somewhat offensive does not help the cause of those who want to usher in a rational, scientific approach to understanding race differences. It just gets us thrust further into the category of malicious crank.
I see your point, but I don't think it's entirely gratuitous. It's pushing the Overton Window back a bit imho.
Chinaman was perfectly acceptable at one point, like Irishman and Frenchman still are. Using it helps to point out the hypersensitivity of the censorious left.
Speaking of grooming standards, I just realized how weird beards are from an ev-psych point of view.
If beards are an advantage to men, why is shaving them so culturally common?
If beards are a disadvantage, why did men evolve to grow them in the first place?
I see Lemmy Kilmister from Motörhead.
“We’re very lucky in the band in that we have two visionaries, David and Nigel, they’re like poets, like Shelley and Byron. They’re two distinct types of visionaries, it’s like fire and ice, basically. I feel my role in the band is to be somewhere in the middle of that, kind of like lukewarm water.” - Derek Smalls
"So, now we know: Denisovans looked like roadies with a mid-1970s English metal band heavily inspired by "Lord of the Rings,"
If the nose is thinner, also could include Frank Zappa in the mix as well.
This guy hangs out by the #3 line station near union sq. Hostile but incomprehensible like most democrats.
Jerry Garcia lives on!