Sub-Saharan Africans derive up to 19% of their ancestry from an unknown, extinct hominid species not found in Eurasian populations

submitted by TheJamesRocket from (self.debatealtright)

Sub-Saharan Africans derive up to 19% of their ancestry from an unknown, extinct hominid species not found in Eurasian populations

According to a 2020 study, ‘Recovering signals of ghost archaic introgression in African populations’ by Durvasula and Sankararaman, Sub-Saharan Africans (i.e. West Africans or ‘Black people’) derive up to 19% of their DNA from an unknown, extinct hominid species.

This mystery ‘ghost’ population is estimated to have diverged from the lineage that led to Homo Sapiens approximately 650,000 years ago, before the split between the Homo Sapiens and Homo Neanderthalis lineages. The study predicted that the admixture between Sub-Saharan Africans and the ghost population occurred around 43,000 years ago, long after Eurasians had left Africa. Europe was already populated by Cro-Magnon at that point.

all 23 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

We wuz monkeyz n' shieeet!!

[–]Three_Rainbow_Dildossocks alts: boobiebrother, crustybutt, dingoatemytaco, schizoid 3 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 5 fun -  (1 child)

Muh ancestahs mang... u say dey... dey fucked sum monkee kangz n sheeit mang? Dat means we niggaz is kangz n shieet, gnomesayin'. We descended from kangz. Dat means we superior to dem pigskin mayo cracKKKaz and gooks n sheeit bcoz we got dat kangz blood in us.

Dat makes hella sense, mang. Dat's why we so regal and all dem sons of Yakub out there beez jealous of us mang. Dat's why dey be tryna' appro... appropria... that's too wordy n' sheeit nigga... dey tryna' steeeeeal our cultcha n' sheeit nigga.

But wut's a monkee, mang? Is that? Is that a tribe of kangz back in the Muthaland? I think dey... dey da guyz that beez flyna' around in dem pyramids n' sheeit, nigga.

Dat's why I'm for black power, mang. Dat's why black lives matter n' we dun give no fuck about no honKKKeys n sheeit mang, bcoz we kangz and dey cracKKKas n' sheeit lived in caves while we flyna' around Mars. Fuck dem KKKraKKKas mang, dem sons of Yakub. Dey rewrote our history to remove our kang ancestry so we dun know sheeit about who we are today. We need to decol... decolonize... man that's wordy... da educashun system. Jesus, Muhammed, Plato, Caesar, ya' know all dem niggas is black? Fuckin' cracKKKaz beez appropriatin' our history, mang. Even Lincoln and Hitler be black. Fuckin' cracKKKaz, dey chain up muh kang ancestahs and be takin' em' to AmeriKKKa, all the way up until Martin Loofer Kang ended slavery, mang. See, there's da conclusive proof dat we wuz kangz even up until Martin Loofer! We wuz kangz up until like 1965! It's in Martin Loofer's fucking name!! He was a kang, and I'm a kang! We only stopped being kangz bcoz of tha White Man in 1965!

Wait... u say monkee, mang. I jus' look up monkee on dis here smartphone and it says there no monkey tribe. Fuck, mang. All it says is about animals n sheeit... Dat means muh ancestahs be fuckin' animals, mang! Dat's why we look like animals, mang! Fuck!

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I read one paragraph an was fatigued. Good work, lol.

[–]Blackbrownfreestuff 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

What about Abos? Have you seen them? They are like modern day living hominids if i've ever seen one.

[–]douglas_waltersWhite Supremacist 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Abos are the ugliest race on the planet.

Completely talentless and unproductive too. At least nig nogs can rap.

[–]negrogreBeing black is anti-white 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Blacks are much more likely to attack than aborigines are.

[–]douglas_waltersWhite Supremacist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Yes, they are far more threatening than Abos. But that is what makes them ideal for red-pilling and accelerationist purposes.

E.g. Australia is filled with a lot Asian immigrants. So the population have less reason to be racially-conscious.

[–]negrogreBeing black is anti-white 0 insightful - 1 fun0 insightful - 0 fun1 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Australia is filled with a lot Asian immigrants. So the population have less reason to be racially-conscious.

Why don't they have a reason to?

[–]douglas_waltersWhite Supremacist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Because Asians are not violent and low IQ. So they can culturally-integrate better than other races.

Which is what makes them all the more dangerous.

[–]TheJamesRocket[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Humans also belong to the Hominid Genus. We just evolved more recently than the others.

[–]negrogreBeing black is anti-white 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (13 children)

Homo erectus, blacks fucked apes, got it.

[–]TheJamesRocket[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

There were significant amounts of interbreeding between the different species of Hominids as they spread around the world. Its hard to trace genetic lineages clearly sometimes.

However, this study shows that an unknown species of Hominid has left a legacy in the African genome, but not in the European or Asian genomes. This raises very profound questions about who should be considered human or not.

[–]SoylentCapitalist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

This raises very profound questions about who should be considered human or not.

Maybe to fools and those who didn't read the study. They are capable of producing fertile offspring with whites and are genetically closer to whites than Neanderthals were. Blacks are the same species, the only argument that can be made is whether they're a different sub-species.

This debate has been had before, besides that u/send_nasty_stuff has stated "Blacks are obviously another breed not species".

[–]TheJamesRocket[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I don't see it as an incontrovertible argument at all.

Just because two groups of organisms can produce fertile offspring does not necessarily mean they are the same Species. There are examples of organisms belonging to the same Genus being able to produce fertile offspring. It all depends on whether they happen to have the same number of chromosomes.

Donkeys and horses can interbreed, but their offspring are not fertile, because donkeys have 62 chromosomes while horses have 64 chromosomes.

However, lions and tigers can interbreed, and their offspring are fertile, because lions and tigers both have 38 chromosomes.

So forgive me, but I do not find your argument to be ironclad.

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

At one point in time blacks might have been a totally different species. The issue is that Europeans (or proto europeans) dipped down into africa and made some hybrids. Ancient people moved around more than we think they did. The euro-african hybrids most likely outcompeted the other mystery DNA groups and now africa is full of a sub species not a different species. If one of /our biologists/ can prove otherwise I'm all ears but that seems the most likely scenario to me.

We shouldn't take 'breed' differences lightly either. It's not like humans are all Labradors with different coats. Irish setters, and German Pointers should be preserved. If you force a Greyhound to breed with a Great Dane or a Rottweiler you lose the unique traits of all three.

[–]SoylentCapitalist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Yes, being able to produce fertile offspring in of itself does not always mean they are the same species. That was not my only argument. I'm also curious how you deal with the fact a mulatto is genetically closer to whites than East Asians are to whites. Are East Asians less than half Homo sapien?

https://saidit.net/s/debatealtright/comments/8527/genetic_distance_between_races/

[–]TheJamesRocket[S] 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

Why bring mixed race individuals into the discussion? If your going to talk about mulattos, then you should talk about hapas as well. In all likelihood, a hapa would be genetically closer to whites than a mulatto.

[–]SoylentCapitalist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

You dodged the question. Are East Asians less than half Homo sapien?

If blacks aren't the same species in your opinion, and a mulatto is half black, yet is genetically closer to whites than the East Asians are, then it stands to reason an East Asian would also be less human than a mulatto according to your logic.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[deleted]

    [–]SoylentCapitalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    East Asians don't have any unknown hominid in their ancestry, and in actuality they cluster pretty close to whites.

    Mulattoes are clustering even closer. Unless you can refute the source you're objectively wrong and will continue to be.

    [–]asterias 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    How everyone defines "human" is extremely relative. For the antispecists, even monkeys are sort of human. How low of a general IQ is human to you?

    [–][deleted]  (1 child)

    [deleted]

      [–]asterias 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Obviously some are more modern human that others.

      [–]SoylentCapitalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      They state 2-19% in the study posted which should be interpreted as 10.5%. They also stated this occurred around 43,000 years ago. Homo erectus was already extinct.

      [–]Nombre27 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

      Seems like miscegenation just results in (backwards?) genetic incompatibility and reversion to version 1.0, e.g. if you want to put a roof on a house you need to first have the walls up.