Quote:Quote:

Carthaginians were as "African" as Boers. Carthage was an entirely Phoenician colony and the Phoenicians were Semites through and through. Their alphabet was almost identical to Hebrew.

Got me thinking how long does it take for a civilization/ethnic to become "native" to their new continent. For example, The Magyars of Hungary are an Asian Steppe tribe yet they have been in Europe for so long, it is hard not to count them as Europeans. Likewise, most original white Americans came from England and some from Germany yet no one would argue that their descendants today are European (though blacks are called African Americans). Ditto for South America despite half of Argentinians having Italian heritage.

May I suggest three generations/100 years being the cut off point as there is no one left alive to remember the previous homeland?

Quote: (11-30-2018 12:08 PM)Trumpian Wrote:  

Quote: (11-30-2018 10:37 AM)Spaniard88 Wrote:  

Quote: (11-30-2018 10:04 AM)Trumpian Wrote:  

Meh. The Chinese have been subjugated by virtually every people that's come through there. Mongols, Manchus, Europeans, Japanese,etc. Intellectually superior people don't find themselves in that position repeatedly.

Everyone's been invaded by their neighbors. Pretty much. Repeatedly. It's kind of a thing, neighboring countries invading each other. Even the recent "top dogs," England and Spain, have been repeatedly invaded throughout history and are a hodge podge of ethnicities due to their history of being invaded.

History fail.

Not remotely comparable.

England hasn't been conquered even by a neighbor since the Normans in 1066.

In the last 1,000 years, China was a client state of the Mongolians, Manchus, and Japanese. Then the Euro colonial powers just grabbed land/cities wherever they felt like it.

I can't think of a country that's been more trampled on honestly.

Siide note: most of the significant Chinese dynasties weren't even Chinese.

All right, all right, in that case, what do you call what's happening to England right now via the European Union? I would call that a loss of sovereignty even if it may not be an invasion per se. There's different ways of being conquered, not all of which are violent, you can also be culturally assimilated by your neighbors in a voluntary manner.

And that's just considering the legal aspect. So in that manner, England is shrinking, and it has been for quite a while, from the height of the British Empire to today. China, on the other hand, is growing, via the takeover of Tibet, it's efforts to assimilate Xinjiang, and its efforts in the South China sea.

China is a vigorous power, in the past, and in the present.

Quote: (11-30-2018 06:48 PM)Philosopher Wrote:  

Quote:Quote:

Carthaginians were as "African" as Boers. Carthage was an entirely Phoenician colony and the Phoenicians were Semites through and through. Their alphabet was almost identical to Hebrew.

Got me thinking how long does it take for a civilization/ethnic to become "native" to their new continent. For example, The Magyars of Hungary are an Asian Steppe tribe yet they have been in Europe for so long, it is hard not to count them as Europeans. Likewise, most original white Americans came from England and some from Germany yet no one would argue that their descendants today are European (though blacks are called African Americans). Ditto for South America despite half of Argentinians having Italian heritage.

May I suggest three generations/100 years being the cut off point as there is no one left alive to remember the previous homeland?

But they are European. What else are they if not European American? You could call white Americans "European Americans," it would be just like calling blacks in America "African Americans," but it would be less racist, as it would put both people on equal footing as hyphenated Americans. Both groups are pretty similar in regards to makeup, that is, a bunch of different Europeans blended into an American English speaking population versus a bunch of different Africans blended into an American speaking English population. Then on top of that a fair amount of the population is both European American and African American.

Think about how one group gets to be "American," even though they're actually European American, while another group, who is just as American, doesn't get to be American, they're pegged as American, but not quite, as hyphenated Americans, as "African Americans." It's a clear example of a racist bias most folks take for granted, as it puts Americans of European background on a pedestal versus Americans of African background. Someday we'll either all be just American, I hope, or we'll all be hyphenated Americans, thought of as equal, yet distinct, partners in the American dream.

And not sure what the cutoff would be, what would make a culture distinctly no longer the previous culture.

America, the new place, is still firmly part of the Anglosphere though, but in regards to Britain's growth, part of that growth was through the cultural assimilation of other elements. Same as Spain, it's growth was partially organic and partially through the cultural assimilation of other elements. Both remain the indisputably dominant culture in the acquired lands, though.

Human skull on the left, Neanderthal on the right. Prominent differences for the Neanderthal are the exaggerated brow ridge and receding chin.

Neanderthal's had the advantage in being smarter, so they could create various types of tools and adapt to various types of resources. Neanderthals would basically invent stuff on their own (but typically the same stuff over and over) without passing the technology on to others.

Sapiens, would instead of adapting themselves to the environment, made the environment suit them. They could socialize to form larger groups and probably won out simply by outbreeding the Neanderthals.

They are not the only hominid species to make into the sapiens DNA. There are also the Denisovans (more prominent in Oceania and India). Modern humans of non-African ancestry have about 2-3%, and an estimated 20% of the Neanderthal code is collectively preserved in modern humans.

Quote: (11-30-2018 08:45 PM)Bacchus Wrote:  

That's terrifying.

Neanderthal- Saipan hybrids likely resulted in the male offspring being sterile.

Quote: (11-30-2018 06:48 PM)Philosopher Wrote:  

Quote:Quote:

Carthaginians were as "African" as Boers. Carthage was an entirely Phoenician colony and the Phoenicians were Semites through and through. Their alphabet was almost identical to Hebrew.

Got me thinking how long does it take for a civilization/ethnic to become "native" to their new continent. For example, The Magyars of Hungary are an Asian Steppe tribe yet they have been in Europe for so long, it is hard not to count them as Europeans. Likewise, most original white Americans came from England and some from Germany yet no one would argue that their descendants today are European (though blacks are called African Americans). Ditto for South America despite half of Argentinians having Italian heritage.

May I suggest three generations/100 years being the cut off point as there is no one left alive to remember the previous homeland?

100 years? Two goddamn thousand hasn't been enough for the Sephardim and Ashkenazim.

Quote: (11-30-2018 07:29 PM)Spaniard88 Wrote:  

Quote: (11-30-2018 06:48 PM)Philosopher Wrote:  

Quote:Quote:

Carthaginians were as "African" as Boers. Carthage was an entirely Phoenician colony and the Phoenicians were Semites through and through. Their alphabet was almost identical to Hebrew.

Got me thinking how long does it take for a civilization/ethnic to become "native" to their new continent. For example, The Magyars of Hungary are an Asian Steppe tribe yet they have been in Europe for so long, it is hard not to count them as Europeans. Likewise, most original white Americans came from England and some from Germany yet no one would argue that their descendants today are European (though blacks are called African Americans). Ditto for South America despite half of Argentinians having Italian heritage.

May I suggest three generations/100 years being the cut off point as there is no one left alive to remember the previous homeland?

But they are European. What else are they if not European American? You could call white Americans "European Americans," it would be just like calling blacks in America "African Americans," but it would be less racist, as it would put both people on equal footing as hyphenated Americans. Both groups are pretty similar in regards to makeup, that is, a bunch of different Europeans blended into an American English speaking population versus a bunch of different Africans blended into an American speaking English population. Then on top of that a fair amount of the population is both European American and African American.

Think about how one group gets to be "American," even though they're actually European American, while another group, who is just as American, doesn't get to be American, they're pegged as American, but not quite, as hyphenated Americans, as "African Americans." It's a clear example of a racist bias most folks take for granted, as it puts Americans of European background on a pedestal versus Americans of African background. Someday we'll either all be just American, I hope, or we'll all be hyphenated Americans, thought of as equal, yet distinct, partners in the American dream.

And not sure what the cutoff would be, what would make a culture distinctly no longer the previous culture.

America, the new place, is still firmly part of the Anglosphere though, but in regards to Britain's growth, part of that growth was through the cultural assimilation of other elements. Same as Spain, it's growth was partially organic and partially through the cultural assimilation of other elements. Both remain the indisputably dominant culture in the acquired lands, though.

It's hard to say if you're being ironic in the bold part. "African-American" is a very powerful word. It gives black people an even greater sense of tribal & racial unity. That's why it was popularized by Jesse Jackson and heavily promoted by the mainstream media. Blacks became both "American" and "African-American". Equal to all other "Americans" and at the same time in their own exclusive club of "African-Americans".

American whites don't have any exclusive club. They're just "Muricans". They've been completely stripped of their rich ancestral history and tribal ties.

Notice how the authorities have no problem with words like "Irish-Ameircan" or "Italian-American" or "Polish-American". Because these words don't unite, they divide. These words guarantee that Americans of European descent will remain divided just like their cousins in Europe.

But "European-Americans"? Oh no. That's basically just a code word for "whites" . Imagine for example a "European-American Scholarship". That's basically like saying "White Scholarship" without actually saying it. Oy! Vey!

But that's why they're doing everything in their power to change the racial landscape and history of Europe. The Boers who have been in South Africa for hundreds of years are not and never will be acknowledged as "African", but Omjiba Oogoojumbo who has been living in Stockholm for the last 5 years is proudly proclaimed a "new European".

Quote: (11-30-2018 08:45 PM)Bacchus Wrote:  

Neanderthal's had the advantage in being smarter, so they could create various types of tools and adapt to various types of resources. Neanderthals would basically invent stuff on their own (but typically the same stuff over and over) without passing the technology on to others.

Sapiens, would instead of adapting themselves to the environment, made the environment suit them. They could socialize to form larger groups and probably won out simply by outbreeding the Neanderthals.

Sounds like autists

Quote: (11-30-2018 09:53 PM)Laconian Wrote:  

Quote: (11-30-2018 06:48 PM)Philosopher Wrote:  

Quote:Quote:

Carthaginians were as "African" as Boers. Carthage was an entirely Phoenician colony and the Phoenicians were Semites through and through. Their alphabet was almost identical to Hebrew.

Got me thinking how long does it take for a civilization/ethnic to become "native" to their new continent. For example, The Magyars of Hungary are an Asian Steppe tribe yet they have been in Europe for so long, it is hard not to count them as Europeans. Likewise, most original white Americans came from England and some from Germany yet no one would argue that their descendants today are European (though blacks are called African Americans). Ditto for South America despite half of Argentinians having Italian heritage.

May I suggest three generations/100 years being the cut off point as there is no one left alive to remember the previous homeland?

100 years? Two goddamn thousand hasn't been enough for the Sephardim and Ashkenazim.

Quote: (11-30-2018 07:29 PM)Spaniard88 Wrote:  

Quote: (11-30-2018 06:48 PM)Philosopher Wrote:  

Quote:Quote:

Carthaginians were as "African" as Boers. Carthage was an entirely Phoenician colony and the Phoenicians were Semites through and through. Their alphabet was almost identical to Hebrew.

Got me thinking how long does it take for a civilization/ethnic to become "native" to their new continent. For example, The Magyars of Hungary are an Asian Steppe tribe yet they have been in Europe for so long, it is hard not to count them as Europeans. Likewise, most original white Americans came from England and some from Germany yet no one would argue that their descendants today are European (though blacks are called African Americans). Ditto for South America despite half of Argentinians having Italian heritage.

May I suggest three generations/100 years being the cut off point as there is no one left alive to remember the previous homeland?

But they are European. What else are they if not European American? You could call white Americans "European Americans," it would be just like calling blacks in America "African Americans," but it would be less racist, as it would put both people on equal footing as hyphenated Americans. Both groups are pretty similar in regards to makeup, that is, a bunch of different Europeans blended into an American English speaking population versus a bunch of different Africans blended into an American speaking English population. Then on top of that a fair amount of the population is both European American and African American.

Think about how one group gets to be "American," even though they're actually European American, while another group, who is just as American, doesn't get to be American, they're pegged as American, but not quite, as hyphenated Americans, as "African Americans." It's a clear example of a racist bias most folks take for granted, as it puts Americans of European background on a pedestal versus Americans of African background. Someday we'll either all be just American, I hope, or we'll all be hyphenated Americans, thought of as equal, yet distinct, partners in the American dream.

And not sure what the cutoff would be, what would make a culture distinctly no longer the previous culture.

America, the new place, is still firmly part of the Anglosphere though, but in regards to Britain's growth, part of that growth was through the cultural assimilation of other elements. Same as Spain, it's growth was partially organic and partially through the cultural assimilation of other elements. Both remain the indisputably dominant culture in the acquired lands, though.

It's hard to say if you're being ironic in the bold part. "African-American" is a very powerful word. It gives black people an even greater sense of tribal & racial unity. That's why it was popularized by Jesse Jackson and heavily promoted by the mainstream media. Blacks became both "American" and "African-American". Equal to all other "Americans" and at the same time in their own exclusive club of "African-Americans".

American whites don't have any exclusive club. They're just "Muricans". They've been completely stripped of their rich ancestral history and tribal ties.

Notice how the authorities have no problem with words like "Irish-Ameircan" or "Italian-American" or "Polish-American". Because these words don't unite, they divide. These words guarantee that Americans of European descent will remain divided just like their cousins in Europe.

But "European-Americans"? Oh no. That's basically just a code word for "whites" . Imagine for example a "European-American Scholarship". That's basically like saying "White Scholarship" without actually saying it. Oy! Vey!

But that's why they're doing everything in their power to change the racial landscape and history of Europe. The Boers who have been in South Africa for hundreds of years are not and never will be acknowledged as "African", but Omjiba Oogoojumbo who has been living in Stockholm for the last 5 years is proudly proclaimed a "new European".

I see what you're saying, Philosopher.

I'll leave it at that, though, to keep the thread back on Neanderthals, haha!

I’ll answer one part of the thread title, as far as I understand it… having nothing to do with Neanderthal DNA. How did Euros conquer the world?

This all mostly comes from a single book, called “Guns, Germs and Steel” by Jared Diamond. Here’s an executive summary.

In the battle between Euros and the “Indians” of the New World, Europeans decimated everyone they met and conquered numerous areas, precisely because of guns, germs, and steel. Natives in the New World couldn’t compete on even footing in a war where the enemy was blasting them with guns, stabbing them with swords, and giving them AIDS (just kidding).

The real question is how in the world did Euros get all these things natives didn’t.

In a word, agriculture.

Agriculture allowed nomadic groups to settle and build communities in areas that offered more stability than running around constantly searching for food. This allowed specialization. Different roles and occupations were created, in particular metallurgy and blacksmithing. Living in close quarters also offered the “opportunity” for new diseases to develop, including the black plague, which nearly wiped Euros out, but also offered a select few immunity to diseases that would prove fatal to Natives who were previously not exposed to what Euros were used to back home.

But why did Euros stumble across agriculture?

In a word, Mediterranean. More specifically the Fertile Crescent. The Fertile Crescent turned out to be the ideal geographic location for agriculture to develop far beyond anywhere else in the world.

Two charts here are helpful.

The chart below shows seed diversity amenable to agriculture at the pivotal time at which the New World was being conquered by Euros. The Fertile Crescent has the highest number of cultivable seeds by orders of magnitude compared to anywhere else in the world.

   

This next chart shows the diversity in mammals that could be domesticated for agriculture. Similar to seeds of fruits and vegetables, the sheer number of domesticable animals in this region wipes the floor with any other region in the world.

   

Because seed diversity and domesticable mammals are critically important to scalable agriculture, Europeans had thousands of years of a head start on the development of agriculture and, hence, modern weaponry, disease, and civilization overall.

Long story short, I wouldn’t really say the presence of Neanderthal, or any DNA besides that which offered resistance to communicable diseases in the Old World that the New World had not experienced, is what really resulted in that critical advantage for Euros. A key concept in genetics after all, is that environmental pressures shape DNA. It was mostly the fortune of having settled along the single place most amenable to agriculture in the entire world. Not the genetic lottery, more like the geographic lottery.

Quote: (11-30-2018 09:53 PM)Laconian Wrote:  

Quote: (11-30-2018 06:48 PM)Philosopher Wrote:  

Quote:Quote:

Carthaginians were as "African" as Boers. Carthage was an entirely Phoenician colony and the Phoenicians were Semites through and through. Their alphabet was almost identical to Hebrew.

Got me thinking how long does it take for a civilization/ethnic to become "native" to their new continent. For example, The Magyars of Hungary are an Asian Steppe tribe yet they have been in Europe for so long, it is hard not to count them as Europeans. Likewise, most original white Americans came from England and some from Germany yet no one would argue that their descendants today are European (though blacks are called African Americans). Ditto for South America despite half of Argentinians having Italian heritage.

May I suggest three generations/100 years being the cut off point as there is no one left alive to remember the previous homeland?

100 years? Two goddamn thousand hasn't been enough for the Sephardim and Ashkenazim.

Quote: (11-30-2018 07:29 PM)Spaniard88 Wrote:  

Quote: (11-30-2018 06:48 PM)Philosopher Wrote:  

Quote:Quote:

Carthaginians were as "African" as Boers. Carthage was an entirely Phoenician colony and the Phoenicians were Semites through and through. Their alphabet was almost identical to Hebrew.

Got me thinking how long does it take for a civilization/ethnic to become "native" to their new continent. For example, The Magyars of Hungary are an Asian Steppe tribe yet they have been in Europe for so long, it is hard not to count them as Europeans. Likewise, most original white Americans came from England and some from Germany yet no one would argue that their descendants today are European (though blacks are called African Americans). Ditto for South America despite half of Argentinians having Italian heritage.

May I suggest three generations/100 years being the cut off point as there is no one left alive to remember the previous homeland?

But they are European. What else are they if not European American? You could call white Americans "European Americans," it would be just like calling blacks in America "African Americans," but it would be less racist, as it would put both people on equal footing as hyphenated Americans. Both groups are pretty similar in regards to makeup, that is, a bunch of different Europeans blended into an American English speaking population versus a bunch of different Africans blended into an American speaking English population. Then on top of that a fair amount of the population is both European American and African American.

Think about how one group gets to be "American," even though they're actually European American, while another group, who is just as American, doesn't get to be American, they're pegged as American, but not quite, as hyphenated Americans, as "African Americans." It's a clear example of a racist bias most folks take for granted, as it puts Americans of European background on a pedestal versus Americans of African background. Someday we'll either all be just American, I hope, or we'll all be hyphenated Americans, thought of as equal, yet distinct, partners in the American dream.

And not sure what the cutoff would be, what would make a culture distinctly no longer the previous culture.

America, the new place, is still firmly part of the Anglosphere though, but in regards to Britain's growth, part of that growth was through the cultural assimilation of other elements. Same as Spain, it's growth was partially organic and partially through the cultural assimilation of other elements. Both remain the indisputably dominant culture in the acquired lands, though.

It's hard to say if you're being ironic in the bold part. "African-American" is a very powerful word. It gives black people an even greater sense of tribal & racial unity. That's why it was popularized by Jesse Jackson and heavily promoted by the mainstream media. Blacks became both "American" and "African-American". Equal to all other "Americans" and at the same time in their own exclusive club of "African-Americans".

American whites don't have any exclusive club. They're just "Muricans". They've been completely stripped of their rich ancestral history and tribal ties.

Notice how the authorities have no problem with words like "Irish-Ameircan" or "Italian-American" or "Polish-American". Because these words don't unite, they divide. These words guarantee that Americans of European descent will remain divided just like their cousins in Europe.

But "European-Americans"? Oh no. That's basically just a code word for "whites" . Imagine for example a "European-American Scholarship". That's basically like saying "White Scholarship" without actually saying it. Oy! Vey!

But that's why they're doing everything in their power to change the racial landscape and history of Europe. The Boers who have been in South Africa for hundreds of years are not and never will be acknowledged as "African", but Omjiba Oogoojumbo who has been living in Stockholm for the last 5 years is proudly proclaimed a "new European".

Good points. In regards to the Jews I've observed that they get the luxury of playing the White card when convenient, but get to play the persecuted minority card for their advantage at other times as well. At least here in America.

I thought Jews ruled the world?

Can you fellas make your damn minds up!

You guys realize that if mixing with Neanderthals produces superior humans, it implies that:

A) Whomever happened to mix with them would have ended up conquering the world, which is an utterly defeatist and anti-self-improvement point of view, and
B) If mixing species produces superior humans, then so does mixing races.

Be careful what you wish for.

Also, it's quite hilarious to see speculations about the genetic anomalies of an 800-year old historical individual who was so secretive that to this day we can't even locate his grave. And if Genghis Khan was a blue-eyed ginger as "it is well known", why don't any modern Mongols/Central Asians look like that?

Quote: (12-01-2018 03:36 AM)Kamikaze Wrote:  

I’ll answer one part of the thread title, as far as I understand it… having nothing to do with Neanderthal DNA. How did Euros conquer the world?

This all mostly comes from a single book, called “Guns, Germs and Steel” by Jared Diamond. Here’s an executive summary.

In the battle between Euros and the “Indians” of the New World, Europeans decimated everyone they met and conquered numerous areas, precisely because of guns, germs, and steel. Natives in the New World couldn’t compete on even footing in a war where the enemy was blasting them with guns, stabbing them with swords, and giving them AIDS (just kidding).

The real question is how in the world did Euros get all these things natives didn’t.

In a word, agriculture.

Agriculture allowed nomadic groups to settle and build communities in areas that offered more stability than running around constantly searching for food. This allowed specialization. Different roles and occupations were created, in particular metallurgy and blacksmithing. Living in close quarters also offered the “opportunity” for new diseases to develop, including the black plague, which nearly wiped Euros out, but also offered a select few immunity to diseases that would prove fatal to Natives who were previously not exposed to what Euros were used to back home.

But why did Euros stumble across agriculture?

In a word, Mediterranean. More specifically the Fertile Crescent. The Fertile Crescent turned out to be the ideal geographic location for agriculture to develop far beyond anywhere else in the world.

Two charts here are helpful.

The chart below shows seed diversity amenable to agriculture at the pivotal time at which the New World was being conquered by Euros. The Fertile Crescent has the highest number of cultivable seeds by orders of magnitude compared to anywhere else in the world.



This next chart shows the diversity in mammals that could be domesticated for agriculture. Similar to seeds of fruits and vegetables, the sheer number of domesticable animals in this region wipes the floor with any other region in the world.



Because seed diversity and domesticable mammals are critically important to scalable agriculture, Europeans had thousands of years of a head start on the development of agriculture and, hence, modern weaponry, disease, and civilization overall.

Long story short, I wouldn’t really say the presence of Neanderthal, or any DNA besides that which offered resistance to communicable diseases in the Old World that the New World had not experienced, is what really resulted in that critical advantage for Euros. A key concept in genetics after all, is that environmental pressures shape DNA. It was mostly the fortune of having settled along the single place most amenable to agriculture in the entire world. Not the genetic lottery, more like the geographic lottery.

There seems to be a few holes in that theory (perhaps they are answered in the book) as to why it was Europeans (any not any other peoples) who came to rule the world.

1.
It wasn't just Europe which had agriculture. It was present throughout Asia. It was also present in Africa. Crops and farm animals were shared throughout these lands.
It was present in the Americas too before any Europeans arrived.
Therefore it doesn't seem to be a differentiator between Europe and the rest of the world.

2.
People of different races perform differently (when viewed at group level) on IQ tests, exam results etc. Even when these people all have the same education (i.e. in diverse Western countries). Therefore, there are clearly differences between races in brain power (again, when viewed at group level).
Could this have played into why Europe came to rule the world? And is the Neanderthal DNA a component of that difference?
I have no idea as to the answer, but it doesn't seem from your summary that Guns, Germs and Steel answers it either.

Quote: (12-01-2018 08:18 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

A) Whomever happened to mix with them would have ended up conquering the world, which is an utterly defeatist and anti-self-improvement point of view

Can you explain this in more detail? I don't understand how it is defeatist to say that certain mixtures of DNA might confer an advantage. It is the fundamental premise of Darwin's Theory of Evolution.

And I don't see what it has to do with self-improvement. We are talking about how DNA can affect large populations. An individual's DNA cannot be changed by self-improvement, the two are completely unrelated.

Quote: (12-01-2018 08:18 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

B) If mixing species produces superior humans, then so does mixing races.

No one is saying any old mixture produces an advantage. The premise is that certain mixtures confer an advantage. Again, this is the fundamental premise of Darwin's Theory of Evolution.


I've no idea if having some Neanderthal DNA does confer an advantage - however I do find it an interesting topic to discuss.

The relative mix of DNA from other human species is an interesting topic.

There was a best selling book a few years ago titled Sapiens about the differences between Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals and why Homo Sapiens triumphed - mostly due to better socialization.

Recently I was watching a documentary about the Yeti. there was a theory that it was a hybrid polar bear grizzly bear. They trekked to the high Himalayas to try to get DNA samples. They used Sherpas to help with the altitude. It turns out that the Sherpas have DNA from another extinct race of humans called the Dinisovans which keeps their blook viscous at high altitudes. Little is known about the Dinisovans but apparrently they coexisted, and cross bred, with homo sapiens.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/07/...ient-human

It interesting that 10 years ago few people were considering these possibilities, and 10 years from now we will probably be able to take a pill and get Sherpa-like cardio vascular endurance.

Quote: (11-30-2018 09:35 PM)Hell_Is_Like_Newark Wrote:  

Neanderthal- Saipan hybrids likely resulted in the male offspring being sterile.

I don't think so.

What likely happened was that Sapiens women, who were pregnant with a Neanderthal man, died during childbirth because the head of the baby was too large to come out. This also happens to a lesser degree, without the deaths, with White male/Asian female offspring (needs c-section much more often).

Guns germs and steel is "magic dirt" idiocy that fails to discredit the hereditarian arguments. I'd hope most on this forum wouldnt buy into that bs. Read Cochran, Wade, etc to get a better picture.

Quote: (12-01-2018 08:27 AM)pelicanto8888 Wrote:  

There seems to be a few holes in that theory (perhaps they are answered in the book) as to why it was Europeans (any not any other peoples) who came to rule the world.

1.
It wasn't just Europe which had agriculture. It was present throughout Asia. It was also present in Africa. Crops and farm animals were shared throughout these lands.
It was present in the Americas too before any Europeans arrived.
Therefore it doesn't seem to be a differentiator between Europe and the rest of the world.

2.
People of different races perform differently (when viewed at group level) on IQ tests, exam results etc. Even when these people all have the same education (i.e. in diverse Western countries). Therefore, there are clearly differences between races in brain power (again, when viewed at group level).
Could this have played into why Europe came to rule the world? And is the Neanderthal DNA a component of that difference?
I have no idea as to the answer, but it doesn't seem from your summary that Guns, Germs and Steel answers it either.

Jared Diamond (Do I have to triple bracket?) is the typical leftist academician that begins with his conclusion and then tries to write interesting things to support it, distracting you along the way, and if you also want to believe it, you buy that he's an expert, etc. And against all known and observable data in the past, present and seemingly future.

Greg Cochran talks about such things in the Norwegian documentary (Hrjenevask = Brainwashed), and it's funny because his points are all totally reasonable and fit the data much better --- they just happen to be hugely politically incorrect. Apart from his evolutionary biology knowledge, he has a great quote in there when considering "cultural" bias by saying it's irrelevant because, sorry, newflash, the culture to succeed currently is European in its standards, like it or not, you succeed in that paradigm or not. Quite funny because it's so obviously true. Still another guy talks about twin studies and adoption of different races and nothing anyone does in terms of environment stops the IQ from coming out.

GGS is a poor attempt to add to the lies of the modern day that ironically hate the civilizations that gave them more freedom and prosperity than anyone else ever did.

Quote: (12-01-2018 08:18 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

You guys realize that if mixing with Neanderthals produces superior humans, it implies that:

A) Whomever happened to mix with them would have ended up conquering the world, which is an utterly defeatist and anti-self-improvement point of view, and
B) If mixing species produces superior humans, then so does mixing races.

Be careful what you wish for.

This is not necessarily true at all. The former has wholly different (species) characteristics, what genomists would call traits as opposed to alleles of a trait, the difference between variation and entirely novel DNA. The latter has evolved selection on particular traits the original ancestors had the capacity for. Addition vs. high pressure filtering, in a sense. Totally different on many levels. But again, it depends on what characteristic you may be looking for, or at.

Quote: (12-01-2018 03:36 AM)Kamikaze Wrote:  

In a word, agriculture.

No, I don't believe that at all. Not in the first place, though clearly agriculture is necessary to develop civilization. It does account, I believe, largely for why Sub Sahara Africa never really developed civilization. Just too many deadly things there, even so there was actually agriculture. The zulus did have agriculture and they did have cattle. The masai also have cattle.

Agriculture has had a domesticating effect on the species, but this is not the same as more intelligent or generally more fit. Compare a wild wolf to a dog. The wolf is far more intelligent and capable. The dog however has much less aggression and is much more suited to cooperate and follow orders.

Here's what I believe the cause:



https://phys.org/news/2010-03-cro-magnon...hrunk.html

Quote:Quote:

The skull belonged to an elderly Cro Magnon man, whose skeleton is called Cro Magnon

Using new technology, researchers have produced a replica of the 28,000-year-old brain and found that it is about 15-20% larger than our brains.

Quote:Quote:

Their brain capacity was about 1,600 cc (98 cu in), larger than the average for modern Europeans

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_e...attributes

Cro-Magnon man was also taller than almost all modern populations until modern medicine and nutrition (except maybe viking populations and some african).

Simply put, the Cro-Magnon man, the original European, was taller, stronger and smarter than any other human population - ever - including modern europeans.

The question is, why did they come to be that? It was certainly not agriculture. They were largely big game hunters, mammoth hunters, sharing caves with massive cave bears and sabre-tooth cats.

I'd rather say this extremely hostile, but predictable environment, selected for a certain kind of human. Strong, smart, future-time oriented. There were much fewer deadly viral infections and parasites in these cold areas. Unlike other extremely hostile, but un-predictable areas such as the tropics, where malaria, ebola, parasites all kill millions and there's little to do about it.

If you really want to go down the rabbit hole of human biodiversity, there's a book written by the anthropologist Richard D. Fuerle called "Erectus walks among us." He wrote it towards tyre end of his career when he had nothing to lose, and said that he was presenting the facts that his colleagues knew were glaringly obvious yet were too scared to publish.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://analyseeconomique.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/richard-d-fuerle-erectus-walks-amongst-us.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj7oLeigP_eAhVfQhUIHUkGBPAQFjAAegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw0GntaCq34AbK2YhLeo5cL7

Quote: (12-01-2018 10:47 AM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

Quote: (12-01-2018 03:36 AM)Kamikaze Wrote:  

In a word, agriculture.

No, I don't believe that at all. Not in the first place, though clearly agriculture is necessary to develop civilization. It does account, I believe, largely for why Sub Sahara Africa never really developed civilization. Just too many deadly things there, even so there was actually agriculture. The zulus did have agriculture and they did have cattle. The masai also have cattle.

Agriculture has had a domesticating effect on the species, but this is not the same as more intelligent or generally more fit. Compare a wild wolf to a dog. The wolf is far more intelligent and capable. The dog however has much less aggression and is much more suited to cooperate and follow orders.

Here's what I believe the cause:



https://phys.org/news/2010-03-cro-magnon...hrunk.html

Quote:Quote:

The skull belonged to an elderly Cro Magnon man, whose skeleton is called Cro Magnon

Using new technology, researchers have produced a replica of the 28,000-year-old brain and found that it is about 15-20% larger than our brains.

Quote:Quote:

Their brain capacity was about 1,600 cc (98 cu in), larger than the average for modern Europeans

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_e...attributes

Cro-Magnon man was also taller than almost all modern populations until modern medicine and nutrition (except maybe viking populations and some african).

Simply put, the Cro-Magnon man, the original European, was taller, stronger and smarter than any other human population - ever - including modern europeans.

The question is, why did they come to be that? It was certainly not agriculture. They were largely big game hunters, mammoth hunters, sharing caves with massive cave bears and sabre-tooth cats.

I'd rather say this extremely hostile, but predictable environment, selected for a certain kind of human. Strong, smart, future-time oriented. There were much fewer deadly viral infections and parasites in these cold areas. Unlike other extremely hostile, but un-predictable areas such as the tropics, where malaria, ebola, parasites all kill millions and there's little to do about it.

Snow, ice, lions, and bears? Out think them.

Ebola, malaria, and parasites? Out breed them.

Also worth noting that J. Diamond went on a diatribe in his book about how "It would be wonderful if we developed a scientific discipline to study the past." We already have one, Diamond - it's called History. The sheer hubris of this statement, to me as a History student at the time, was appalling. He acts as if he invented the idea of trying to compare like-civilization to like-civilization, aside from one or two variables. This is what Historians have been doing since ancient Greece: trying to suss out the truth from narrative, and see through the heuristics of the writer.

That he would think his insight is revolutionary - well, it makes me question everything else in his books. He really comes across as a typical NYT thinker; pointing out 101 level stuff, making sweeping generalizations, and convincing people who know nothing about the field that he's a genius. Get back to me when he's spent 10,000 hours studying the topic.

That last line was a joke.

Quote: (12-01-2018 11:09 AM)Horus Wrote:  

If you really want to go down the rabbit hole of human biodiversity, there's a book written by the anthropologist Richard D. Fuerle called "Erectus walks among us." He wrote it towards tyre end of his career when he had nothing to lose, and said that he was presenting the facts that his colleagues knew were glaringly obvious yet were too scared to publish.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://analyseeconomique.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/richard-d-fuerle-erectus-walks-amongst-us.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj7oLeigP_eAhVfQhUIHUkGBPAQFjAAegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw0GntaCq34AbK2YhLeo5cL7

Interesting bit on page 193 about FuckingWhiteMales™ having the largest standard deviation for IQ and NE Asians having the smallest. A higher SD would mean a flatter wider bell curve. Is the difference large enough to mean there are more white males than Asian males at some point on the far right end of the graph even though the Asian bell curve is shifted to the right?

That would explain some things, as if NE Asian populations have both right shifted and higher/narrower bell curves, it would mean far fewer low IQ retards breaking things, a higher average IQ, but also fewer 160+ IQ geniuses innovating.

To be fair, most of the larger brains of neanderthals could be stuff like nightvision. It is speculated they were nocturnal hunters because of it. The occipital bun they have in the back is supposedly the cerebellum which does fairly standard stuff like making sense of surroundings and movement.

Quote: (12-01-2018 08:18 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

You guys realize that if mixing with Neanderthals produces superior humans, it implies that:

A) Whomever happened to mix with them would have ended up conquering the world, which is an utterly defeatist and anti-self-improvement point of view, and

That's entirely my point. There has to be a biological basis for European geopolitical supremacy. As well as complete domination in the arts and sciences, really anything requiring creativity.

You seem uncomfortable with the idea of certain groups of people having a genetic advantage. Most people are. But I don't think science and data should take a backseat to such peoples feelings.

Quote:Quote:

B) If mixing species produces superior humans, then so does mixing races.

Logical reasoning failure.

Mixing with a superior population, or race would offer benefits. So the whole premise of the thread is that European homo sapiens gained an advantage via this heavy Neanderthal admixture.

Statistically, we wouldn't gain anything mixing with other races. Well mixing with east Asians might increase the mean IQ, but it'd probably detract in other areas.

Quote:Quote:

Also, it's quite hilarious to see speculations about the genetic anomalies of an 800-year old historical individual who was so secretive that to this day we can't even locate his grave.

It's not speculation. The Persian historian Rashid-al-Din (whose family served in the imperial Mongol court for several generations) wrote that description.

Quote:Quote:

And if Genghis Khan was a blue-eyed ginger as "it is well known", why don't any modern Mongols/Central Asians look like that?

First off those features are recessive. So it may have been exceedingly rare even back then. But it's also fair to say Mongolian genetics have drifted over the last millenium. Lots of interbreeding with Han Chinese. And also, they undoubtedly brought back many foreign wives and slaves from all over the empire during the conquests.

The question is a bit silly though. We know there were were white tribes in China from 2,000 BC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarim_mummies

Really not hard to imagine that the Mongols and other peoples in central Asia intermarried with them and occasionally showed that phenotype.