How Humans Conquered the World (my take)

Mpdern humans evolved in Africa over 300,000 years ago. After many failed migrations from Africa, they finally succeeded after the invention of the bow in Africa about 80,000 years ago. African bowmen crossed the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait, from the horn of Africa into what is now Yemen. From there they migrated eastware along the Arabian Sea coast, then northward along the Persian Gulf coast. When they reached the mouths of the Euphrates and Tigris rivers, some of them chose to stay there, while the others continued eastware along the seacoast. Those who stayed behind would, over many tens of thousands of years, migrate up these rivers, populate the fertile crescent, and reach the Mediterranean Sea and the mouth of the Nile. Their descendants would eventually create the first great cities and civilizations of Mesopotamia and then Egypt. A few would even manage to cross the Caucasus Mountains to live as inland hunter-gatherers on the western Eurasian Steppe. While that was just beginning, the rest of the seacoast people continued eastward. When they reached the mouth of the Tigris, the same thing happened. Some of them stayed behind, migrated up the river for tens of thousands of years, and eventually created the great Tigris Valley civilization. As before, some even got across the Himalayas, reached the Eurasian Steppe, and lived there as hunter-gatherers Meanwhile, the original seacoast migration eventually reached Southeast Asia, Some people split southward to populate the area of Australia and Oceania. The others kept to the seacoast of East Asia until they came to the Yellow River. Those who stayed there for tens of thousands of years would eventually create the great Eastern civilizations. And once again, some went further inland to become hunter-gatherers of the eastern Eurasian Steppe. Those who kept going along the seacoast eventually crossed Beringia and continued down along the west coast of the Americas. When they reached the mouths of the Peruvian rivers Fortaleza, Pativilca, Supe, and Huaura, they once again populated the area for tens of thousand of years, and went on to create the first great cities and civilizations of the Americas.

How could evolution possibly produce a sexually dimorphic creature? There is no immediate advantage in survival & makes it extremely difficult to reproduce. Furthermore the emergence of male & female would have to happen simultaneously, a male creature & a female creature would need to appear at the exact same time in order to reproduce. Emergence of male or female is not a small change in genetic material or creature structure either.

>>86031 modern humans are a mix of african humans, denisovans and neanderthals you idiot.

Currently, modern humans in Africa have almost zero Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA. Modern humans outside of Africa have very small amounts of Neanderthal and/or Denisovan DNA (about 4%) from interbreeding. In neither case does it have anything to do with the definition of a modern human.

>>86030 >Modern humans evolved in Africa over 300,000 years ago. Stopped reading right there sparky. What's the point of speaking about those ancient so-called "humans" from then when at this point they're so distinct their a completely different separate specie of sapiens that has really fuarrrk all to do with modern humans. And when you start to get more into genetics and start studying the different categories that separate animal subspecies, you realize 'no there isn't one race, the human race' there's a human group with a bunch of distinct sub species. We humans are definitely not all the same. Take that indoctrination back to the frankfurter school coolio. What ever you wrote may be profound but for me TLDR, just wanted to put this out there because I don't know why a modern person where care anything about a group of bipeds that really can help our current existence in anyway beyond gas lighting ourselves that "we're all the same" when we're fuarrrking not.

>>86033 blue eyes come Neanderthals due adaptions to their cold climates with lack of sunlight. i do think there needs to be a divergence again, ethnics are miserable and everyone knows misery loves company.

>>86032 Evolution claims life began as single celled asexual organisms and became everything else. Evolution doesn't claim the beginning is "african humans, denisovans and neanderthals".

>>86031 I assume it happened through a form of coevolution. It is probably evolutionary advantageous to try and reproduce as much as possible, and therefore continuously produce a large amount of gametes (male). It is probably evolutionary advantageous to try to select the "best" partners, even if it means reproducing less (female). Most importantly, it is advantageous for both types to coexist, and eventually specialize so much that male-male or female-female reproduction becomes impossible. If the population is large enough, not being able to reproduce with half of it isn't a significant disadvantage. Side notes: - Sexual reproduction is an ability evolved in eukaryotes, but most single-cell organisms can reproduce through mitosis (asexual "cloning") - Most plants and some animals re-evolved hermaphroditism. Some can even reproduce asexually, through self-pollination or parthenogenesis.

>>86036 and it began asexual , being sexual reproduction an evolutionary trait. I just wanted to point out that what we calls "humans" is a set of different subspecies(the formal definition of what people ordinarily call races) we need more divergence in order to become different species and consequently end the misery

>>86030 they found skeleton over 120k old in south africa. fuarrrkin annoying how people still insist on the old story

>>86044 seems im retarded to >skeleton over 120k old in south africa. meant over 120k in south america since its much older it flat out debunks the conventional out of africa timeline. btw single cell bacteria have dna exchange mechanism accomplishing same thing as sex - horizontal gen transfer is the name for whole topic.

>>86031 >How could evolution possibly produce a sexually dimorphic creature? >There is no immediate advantage in survival & makes it extremely difficult to reproduce. One way to approach this is to look at species that are optionally sexual, such as budding yeast and some nematodes. Under normal environmental conditions they reproduce asexually or hermaphroditically, because their current genetic setup is adequate. But when faced with extreme stress, they engage various mechanisms to increase the odds of mating, and thus increase the diversity of allocation of existing genes. (There are also mechanism for increasing the mutation rate under stress). For example, the nematode C. elegans normally yields 1 male in 1000 progeny, but under heat stress that ratio rises close to 50-50. So clearly there is a potential survival benefit to mating (increasing diversity of allocation of existing genes to improve survival in harsh conditions). (Not to mention that sexual dimorphism introduces mate-choice as a strong driver of fitness). I will leave the *how* to another post, or to someone else, but at least they why/what benefit should be more clear.

>>86031 >There is no immediate advantage in survival & makes it extremely difficult to reproduce. The Red Queen hypothesis suggests that large animals use sexual reproduction to scramble their genes every generation to throw off parasites and pathogens that would otherwise exterminate the entire specifies if genetic structures remain too static or predictable.

>>86049 pathoogens okay but parasites? sounds bs you dont alter your anatomy from parent to child. In other words the dna difference is to small to affect parasites.

>>86034 Oh, sorry. I was using the generally accepted scientific definition of modern human instead of the dumbass racist definition that you seem to prefer. I'll just leave you to your ignorant fantasy world where Africans are a "different species" then Adolf, Lol. There's no help for anyone stupid enough to believe that.

The advantage of sexual reproduction is that it speeds up evolution by introducing genetic changes at a faster rate, helping organisms adapt to changing environmental pressures more quickly.

Two important things happened regarding the formation of modern Europe. First, around 7,000 BC, a wave of farmers ftom an area of modern day Turkey migrated along the Mediterranean and Atlantic seacoasts as far as the British Isles. They mixed with the blue-eyed, dark-skinned "Western Hunter Gatherers" who already lived there, and culturally replaced them. These "Early European Farmers" worked their way inland, spreading agriculture as they went. These are the people who built Stonehenge (not Celts, who came much later). Second, around 4,000 BC, waves of nomadic pastoralist horsemen from the western Eurasian Steppe (known as "Western Steppe Herders") began migrating westward into Europe. In addition to the domestication of horses, they brought with them wheeled carts and the Proto-Indo-European culture and language. They mixed with the Early European Farmers and replaced them culturally. Modern Europeans are mostly a genetic mixture of these Western Hunter Gatherers, Early European Farmers, and Western Steppe Herders, as well as Scandinavian Hunter Gatherers. The Scandinavian Hunter Gatherers were genetically diverse. Some had light skin, hair, and eye color, while others had the same dark skin and blue eyes as the Western Hunter Gatherers of the rest of Europe. By comparison. the Early European Farmers and Western Steppe Herders were mostly brown-eyed, dark-haired, and not very light-skinned. This information, taken from genetic studies of ancient remains, throughly debunks the nonsense that civilization and Indo-European culture were brought to Europe by some white "master race".

>>86086 stonehenge is dated older than 8k and some even claim even more. The rest is likely as valid If you wanna be accurate all historians do is find a few broken pieces and write fan fiction about it. Nobody really has a clue what happened.

>>86084 These aren't definitions, this is genetic science. Oh my bad you're American. You're the only ones who believe the soykaf you're saying. Everyone else whose at least one no way in hell believes they're the same species as Africans you dumb American nigger.

>>86033 If we had denisovans and neanderthals today, would you honestly define humanity in a way that excludes them? Keep in mind that they can have fertile offspring with modern-definition humans. The only reason you feel okay labeling them otherwise is because they aren't around. There wasn't some genetic statistical test for who is a human that we applied to everyone. We just said if you can get them pregnant (or if they can get yours pregnant) then they are human. >>86034 I mean if we are all fertile together, shouldn't we consider ourselves cospecific? The category of "creatures naturally breedable by the most intelligent minds" seems very important to recognize. Racism would take an entirely different form if different races couldn't have viable fertile offspring. Imagine no threat of them stealing your women, nor the temptation of killing all of them and stealing their women. Imagine interacting with sapients who are only rivals to you on the level of resource constraints- and you don't kill your hunting dog just because it needs to eat. You don't go to war with lions except for as sport. I haven't seen any evidence that mixed race people have fertility lower than the average of their parents. (except I guess some Caribbean women have fertility issues from fibers in their uteri but that might just be the african in them, not because they are the most mixed populations on earth)

>>86089 >haven't seen any evidence that mixed race people have fertility lower than the average of their parents blood types. Child getting a different type from mother introduces issues up to mother cant get more kids after giving birth to a child of different blood type. There are advantages to it too however - blood type affects what >>86049 mentioned - diseases arent uniform effective on different blood types. So a village of different blood types has lower risk of everyone getting oneshot by a single disease.

Of course humans think they conquered the world. We havent even asked other species who they think conquered the world. >>86035 > blue eyes come Neanderthals due adaptions to their cold climates with lack of sunlight. evolution doesnt work that way. The mutations are random and if they do not cause harm to reproduce then they carry on. Blue eyes are sensitive to light so better in dark but bad in bright light so whether good or bad will not depend only on location but their culture as to what times they are active and if they develop a manmade way to handle the sensitivity to light. The mutations also can appear in more than one population independently by pure chance. or perhaps certain environmental factors influencing genetic mutation we dont quite understand similar to how epigenetic information can also pass down.

>>86090 Very interesting stuff! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_type_distribution_by_country#Maps_of_ABO_alleles_among_native_populations

>>86090 > blood types. Child getting a different type from mother introduces issues up to mother cant get more kids after giving birth to a child of different blood type. This doesnt sound quite right how you phrased this. Blood type incompatibility is an immune response where the body attacks the fetus's blood cells and does not always occur even after the first birth. In most cases this is possible if the mother has type O blood and the fetus has type A, B or AB. This also potentially occurs if the mother is Rh negative and the fetus Rh positive. Any other kind of combination causing this is uncommon it seems. Also there is treatment for it if it is discovered so not as big a deal as it used to be. Blood types isnt a race thing either even if there is different distribution of blood types among racial groups. Genetics would be more distributed by geographic proximity than race and in the past people didnt really travel far very often so it would be unlikely common to be reproducing with people from far away lands that are genetically isolated.

>>86093 He asked if mixing genes causes issues. Rejection due different blood type is clearly the answer for that since it does affect fertility negatively. The fact that blood type has a clearly skewed distribution by region also suggests that the mixing is a cross breeding result and not a case of same mutations occurring across regions.

>>86091 what are you saying , light is information and they can capture way more. They are way better for academics than brown or black eyes.

>>86094 Continent wise the distribution is not that huge a difference. You do see variety country to country where part of it may be due to inbreeding reducing blood type variations. ABO blood types existed in Homo Sapiens, Neanderthals, and Denisovans. Same study also showed Neanderthals and Denisovans came from Africa. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0254175 Here is another study how ABO blood types occurs in other primates https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1210603109 >>86095 If you had blue eyes or gray eyes you would know by now bright light vision is hindered a little because it is so blinding. I think you're confusing eye color with the photoreceptors themselves perhaps? Also your point doesnt align with any data Im aware of. Some of the best performing countries in academia are dominated by brown eyes not blue eyes.

>>86030 I've been studying linguistics for a couple of years academically, with a focus on migration. I think your take is very sound especially near the end, but I must ask this: How can you explain H. Sapiens in Europe pre 80 KYA? and, I don't think there was an migration from the east into the Steppe. For language, my hypothesis is that a group of humans came up with language (in Africa most likely) ~ 100 KYA, and because other groups of humans were cognitively ready for language (although lacked it) it was easily adopted throughout the known world, spreading easily throughout groups, without a need for further genetic evolution. This would explain millions of years between industries of stone tools, culminating in the recent technological speed up around 100 KYA. You don't need language to make stone tools. I haven't seen your bow hypothesis mentioned in literature, although I do think you're on the right track. The invention of greater technology created more specific environmental pressures, which evolved H. Sapien cognitive abilities, and vice-versa. It was unlikely Neanderthals or Erectus had human language. From many classes and papers written about the subject, this seems to be the general consensus of the field right now.

>>86109 can you explain why you think these things ? Im happy to entertain spitballs but I do keenly like sterner stuff (this goes for everyone in this thread)

>>86110 If you're wondering about my stone tool point (fresh in my mind I just wrote a paper about it) I'd look up "Finished Artefact Fallacy" by Davidson I. (2002). There are other experimental studies demonstrating that stone tools can be made without language, but too many to list here, although I will if you really want. If you're asking about the more modern evolution of human language, I'd look up the term "Gene-Culture Co-evolution" and the academics Fitch W.T. (any year), Roebroeks W. et al (2009) Lass R. (2009), and Barham L. et al (2020). Happy to give more. Linguistics is a especially contentious field, but I think the view I hold is the safest we can ascertain right now. Language may well be older than 100 KYA, although I don't think we can prove it, and the things associated with language, like technological explosions and art making only show up around 100 KYA. Some studies will say art making shows up older than that, but I am skeptical of those requiring language or symbolic thought, because other animals without those characteristics have shown an inclination towards aesthetics.

>>86088 >this is genetic science. Lol. There is no science, genetic or otherwise, that indicates Africans are a different species. In fact, Africans are very genetically diverse. Stop larping as someone who knows anything about science or genetics. You clearly don't. >you dumb American nigger. Lol, wrong again (perfect score so far). I'm as white as tthe driven snow, pure English and Irish as far back as I can trace (several centuries). Probably a lot whiter than you, Tardo.

>>86087 >stonehenge is dated older than 8k and some even claim even more. "Stonehenge was built in six stages between 3000 and 1520 bce," https://www.britannica.com/topic/Stonehenge "Stonehenge was constructed in several phases beginning about 3100 BC and continuing until about 1600 BC." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonehenge

>>86113 >There is no science, genetic or otherwise, that indicates Africans are a different species. These are just social constructs. Therefore there is nothing to suggest they're the same species. It's all just made up. And who the fuarrrk cares how diverse they are. That word gets you real moist doesn't it? "Oh Diverse Muhammad coming on my shores to cum in my ass. Ughhh Panjeet your diversity is my strength as I mount your glorious magical rain stick, bring me closer to your diverse pagan annimist ways. I'm... Gonna. GOONA DIVERSEEEE!!!". Why are whites like this?

>>86115 There is actually something called the species problem. Basically species are just made up too. Why races matter even more for being bullshit is because the psychological effect it has, like how humans despite being animals see themselves sas other than an animal and animals lesser to them, so by designating someone else an other race it could be they would be potentially viewed as a lesser animal. As for the comment on diversity I don't care for it, genetic diversity is good but I dont think forcing racial diversity is good. So it's not a white people thing just some sort of trend among some Westerners where they try so hard not to be racist they wind up being extremely racist.

>>86117 I'm the asshole above. I get the 'nobleness' of the idea of it would be great for all races and cultures to get along, and share with each other. And I too used to think this when I grew in a multi-cultural environment. However then I traveled. I got to visit homogeneous places. I stayed in different places for decades. Poor places. Rich places. Dirty places. Clean places. With rule of law and without. One of the things that happens is you become a ghost as an outsider. People literally just pretend you don't exist, if you're not making a ruckess. What I got to see is it really is better when everybody is the same, same culture, same believe, same language, and every generation does the same things that the generation before them have done. So highly predictable. In otherwords you can for the first time in your life reach a level of relaxation that I don't think is possible outside of these parameters. And then I started to look deeper into comfort. The richer cleaner countries are just better than the poorer ones. Everything works. You don't have to worry about anything. Everyone is educated. You don't have to worry about things breaking or people being retarded and thus doing unpredictable things. So after decades of this I realized as a white I really wish I could have the same. And now I'm literally disgusted by anything that is not homogeneous and is fuarrrking poor. And I find it insanely stressful in multi-culture soykaf-holes. You have to consider everyone and everyone's feelings and everyone's backgrounds, and everyone language abilities, race blah blah blah blah. I'd rather be a hermit than deal with all that. I truly believe no other whites will know any of this unless they experience the same things. I'm telling you. The whole foreigner diversity thing, unless you have a fetish about this, it wears ya down. And also from a business innovation perspective, this gets in the way of profitability. Time spent considering the diversity of employees. No thanks. I always find specialty offers and services that are ultra localized so I make sure I only have to deal with one type of customer, one type of culture, one type of race, one type of history, etc. fuarrrk nuance. It's exhausting. It's noble on paper, but not in practice. It leads to the destruction of civilizations. Read a book. Sir Glubb on "The fate of empires" It's not some racist woo woo. He was smarter than y'all and definitely I. An old breed of well traveled Englishmen, without the cliche imperialism.

>>86107 >If you had blue eyes or gray eyes you would know by now bright light vision is hindered a little because it is so blinding. Ethnic cope.

>>86117 All human races can procreate with each other and have fertile offspring. Even Homo Sapiens and Neanderthal could have somewhat fertile offspring. No, there is a strong genetic distance between the various human populations. Animals of the same species that have much smaller genetic distance and observable differences are classified as different sub species. You can ask if we should lie on the existence of races but it would not change the fact that they exist. >>86113 >pure English and Irish Yeah, so a mulatto. Celts and Germans are two different breeds.

>>86118 That's such a nonsense. Richer and cleaner countries are exactly the multicultural countries, very unpredictable too. If you want socially predictable country like what you describe go to any slav soykafhole.

>>86123 just look at Sweden state, import the third world become the third world. like i said we need to complete diverge into different species, i am sick of these braindead parasites coming to Europe.

>>86123 >I've never left European continent but I'm worldly because I'm in the EU and have crossed paths with an Albanian once. Kek.

>>86123 >cleaner lmao since europe got enriched the cities are dirty and group rapings became a popular trend. Even the most feral slav country behaves better

>>86128 Agreed. I've been to supposedly the "clean western European cities" they're overrun and dirty. Go into the mountains if you want to get away from the mudslimes. But even up there they're dicking around for touristy reasons. Hard to get away from them.

>>86123 ah yes, because the richest and cleanest part of any first world country is the highly diverse inner-city slum- right? wait, its not? the rich and clean parts are the mono-racial non-urban zones that have preserved native culture? the amish have a lower crime rate than, say, detroit? preposterous

>>86131 We used to have public grill huts and other recreational places for everyone to enjoy in local forest. They got torn down over the last years because these animals leave all their trash where they sit and never clean up after themself. rangers got fed up playing cleaning lady and finally snapped removing all grill huts.

>>86123 Allow me to correct you: Richer and cleaner countries are the monocultural ones or used to be monocultural in a recent, better past. Iceland and Japan are still pretty much ethnostates, and they are rich and clean. Western Europe and north America used to be, and they used to be better countries than they are now. The idea of a common thing we all work for is a necessity for a country that wish material and cultural wealth. Melting pots don't have such thing. Worse, they have racial tensions, if not racial activists. Thrashing society is an act of justice, almost an act of resistance for the minorities that perceive themselves as oppressed.

>>86138 >>86132 Cleaner is there where a lot of money is thrown into regular cleaning, which makes richer countries cleaner. Even if there are no humans in area, it becomes dirty without cleaning. Cherrypicking graffiti and drunk people vomiting isn't something that gives a good picture, because cleanliness should be measured uniformly through big areas. Even if there is a single spot with vomit but kilometers of streets without dust buildup around, the averaged cleanliness per m2 is very high.

>>86139 ethnic cope detected. the only way to destroy diversity is by destroying weakness since the ones pushing diversity agenda are the ones the practice slavery back in the days aka Elite white people. if you want to destroy diversity and crush ethnics you have to surpass elite white people with power from within.

>>86118 You should come to Louisiana

A day ago i just listened to a podcast i ussually check out, idk why i didnt link it earlier it has some interesting stuff in it at https://crypticchroniclespodcast.com/humans-are-not-from-earth/ That one raises some very interesting questions, some that i even as a hobby biologist missed out on and stuff i never knew, such as humans being naturally unsuited for sunlight. Humans have always seemed so unnatural and unexplainable to me, even with so called neanderthals that have no been found to have had actual burrial sites found by now to have been intellectually more developed than assumed. It is also noteworthy that central africa used to have some sort of very developed civilization at some point as found by monolithic ruins, but there is little clue as to whom it was.

>>86141 I thought it was creole black mostly there? I don't know anything about it tho.

>>86139 Civilized people dont create a mess littering their trash everywhere. This isnt a money issue, its a cultural issue and the new people clearly have a trash culture because they spew trash everywhere.

>>86139 The streets of Paris are cleaned twice a day. This is one of the reason why the city is so deeply indebted. Still, it's not enough. Thrash is everywhere in the street. Switzerland is clean. Norway is clean. Iceland is clean. Japan is clean. Paris, London, Berlin are not. Poverty isn't what make people thrash everywhere. Being civilized is. How much does it cost to not litter? If the population is civilized, the streets are clean with minimum public effort. If the population is savage, no quantity of money will be enough. >>86140 Here is how I see it. More people mean bigger numbers. Slavery mean more people so we are going to do a lot of it. Production tools changes and you really can't use slave nodaway. More people mean bigger numbers. Imperialism mean more people so we are going to do a lot if it. But then the world powers change and we really can't do imperialism anymore. More people mean bigger numbers. Immigration mean more people. We are going to do a lot of it. There is really no need to overthink it. It's all the same movement, the same dynamic, the same energy. The line must go up. Whatever the cost is for proles, that is unfortunate. >>86142 >such as humans being naturally unsuited for sunlight. We need sunlight to create vitamin D. We are made to breath this atmosphere.

>>86144 you dont know what youre talking about. i live in a highly conservative muslim city in a muslim country and it is way cleaner than america. they have cleaners whose entire job is to walk around the city picking up litter and sweeping the sidewalks. at night they have trucks to spray the roads with water to make sure it doesnt get dusty. it isnt cultural it is financial, you have to have a government in place with the money and the care to create systems for keeping stuff clean.

>>86142 >hobby biologist >links schizo podcast

>>86031 Evolution is unpredictable. It's whatever sticks, sticks. Usually these are advantages, but not always.

>>86146 >just act like an animal and pay for cleanup >we do it like that here! no wonder your people are a menace to europe.

>>86150 all countries have litter like plastic wrappers on the street retard, but here they clean it up. you clearly havent traveled much.

>>86146 >I live in a highly traditional place where religion is important and we have less money than the west >it's cleaner than the west You proved our point. Yes, if it is Somalia tier anarchy, this isn't about money but places without a central power are always Somalia tier. Civilized people always create an organized power structure. As an European, I have no shame admitting that Iran is more civilized than us. We used to fare better. >>86149 The credo of evolution is to get things work most of the time until your kids are old enough.

>>86151 nice cope Some countries have a culture of cleaning after yourself and not littering like an animal. Like i mentioned already in >>86133 things used to be better and went downhill with your kind joining.

>>86153 Being civilized is mostly cultural. When they are in their countries, they know how to behave, but when they are here, the society they face everyday is perceived like an adversary. There are causes that make people behave like an asset for society and if we forget it, we can only have chaos.

>>86154 >he society they face everyday is perceived like an adversary. then why come to europe? hedonistic creatures.....

Would the derailers of this thread join me if I made a thread dedicated to measuring and comparing societal predispositions? Power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism/collectivism, masculinity/femininity and long vs short term orientation.

>>86129 >Yeah, so a mulatto. Celts and Germans are two different breeds. Surprise! The average modern Englishman is still about 70% Celtic genetically. The Cornish and Welsh much more-so. The Angles and Saxons did a much better job of spreading their culture than their genes. You keep making these fundamental errors. That's how people can tell that, despite the pretense, you don't really understand what you're saying.

>>86162 I find Hofstede's cultural theory to be be an MTBI for groups of people. Yeah, it kind of enlight some important aspect of personalities, but that's does not mean much. What are you even supposed to do with it? What about all the facets it ignore?

>>86181 generalizations cant avoid ignoring details the nature of applying statistics is you accept an error margin because you expect to win on avg

>>86119 >Ethnic cope What are you going on about little chuddy? I was just pointing out the pros and cons to having blue/gray colored eyes. Brown/black etc colored eyes have the opposite pros and cons. Though there is one con I forgot to mention is blue/gray eyes also are more at risk to UV damage. >>86114 Maybe Lainon was thinking of Göbekli Tepe? That's in modern day Turkey and is around 9500 BCE to 8000 BCE or maybe Nabta Playa which is near modern day Cairo Egypt built around 7500 BCE.

>>86185 comparing enhanced perception with a more risk of UV damage. clearly braindead.

>>86149 Why even bother with the evolution idea if you can't do anything with it? It's "unpredictable" to the point of meaninglessness. It's justifying the status quo, not an explanation or a model.

>>86030 History this old is the subject to many speculations. Even the out of Africa theory is still open to debate. https://www.anthropol.ac.cn/EN/10.16359/j.cnki.cn11-1963/q.2019.0068 We are not even sure that the first Americans weren't from Europe. >>86032 I would argue that denisovans and neanderthals come from african protohumans.

ancient sumerian lore is still best lore: alien research team gets stationed in solar system, they don't want to work so they genetic engineer laborers, some get lonely and fuarrrk them, behold a human is born! Everyone agrees its messed up and the result is dangerous but of course some hippy has to insist to let it live.

>>86195 Is this Sumerian lore? Sounds like Book of Enoch.

>>86152 You're right, and it goes about doing this by sticking with whatever sticks. Sometimes that includes little fibs and errors. >>86189 Are you denying evolution? The process of genetic mutation is what is unpredictable, evolution just keeps the unpredictable change if it doesn't harm survival chance. Makes more sense to me than some guy in the sky "designing" us. >>86195 Lol literally the plot of that Alien movie right

>>86199 there is crossover among old texts. Could be both. Cant keep it apart by memory but the biblical guy that lives forever has also other sources doing the same story with much more detail on how he got someone mad and punished for it with a long life where he has to watch everything he cares about crumble into dust. If you think about it the classic "do not be afraid" angels fit also perfectly within a typical alien story. >>86200 hollywood lives on copying everything. Most obvious with the thor marvel soykaf.

>>86181 I would kind of like to theorycraft etiology for these cultural tendencies, to find the details underlying the abstractions. What makes these cultures different? If we were transitioning from a culture of guilt into one that acculturates people into feeling shame (dependent on other people perceiving your transgressions) would we notice things like people feeling it is more acceptable to publicly grieve, and less acceptable to be cheerful? Are there generational cycles we can predict? Looking at the questions used and considering which ones might translate poorly- what sort of background research do you need to do to figure out if you understand some basic terms of a culture that uses a separate language? There is recursive uncertainty like "do I really understand what I think I understand? How do I confidently root this concept in the same place, when the entire context of what they are is different?" The best abstractions at least give us a good place to start looking by putting an object of interest in this hall of mirrors. Or stuff like how collectivism is only defined in terms of a collective like your peers or allies. I find his analysis of masculinity/femininity least interesting because the scale doesn't feel objective at all. Or like if there are distinct systems that implement or cope with something like "high individualism, high uncertainty avoidance" in entirely different ways.

OP here. Correction. It looks like the first successful migration out of Africa went to the Indus River first by crossing the Strait of Hormuz. Then a big split-up happened. From there, some went back west to the Tigris and Euphrates, then the Nile. Some went northwest over the Himalayas to the Eurasian Steppe. Some continued eastward along the seacoast. That also jibes with the (much, much later) possibility that the source of the Proto-Indo-European culture and language was somewhere around that split-up point, maybe modern-day Pakistan/India Indus River Valley. So the Yamnaya of the Pontic Steppe weren't the source. The roots go back much, much earlier to the Indus people. The ancient near-easterners and the steppe people were just two branches of of a migration from the Indus that eventually spread to Europe and much of the world. This fits all of the genetic, linguistic, and archaeological evidence better than any other theory.