Manosphere Amud - The Balloon Loon, Loveshy Extraordinaire

[Cuck Norris]

What does my post have anything to do with phrenology?

If we aren't descended from Neanderthals and there was indeed a migration out of Africa in which "humans" replaced Neanderthals, then if we look at the fossil record, we would see that up until whatever time the migration occurred, the people were Neanderthal, then after the migration occurred, there was a sharp transition such that the people had modern "human" phenotypes. I just showed you the fossil record and as we can see, there is no such sharp transition. Each successive skull I showed is less Neanderthal and more "human" than the previous one, with no major jumps that would indicate a mass population replacement with a different species.

Why do you put so much stock in something that was debunked over a century ago in favor of things like DNA, which are proven scientifically?

 

[meatslab]

do you get laid?

He already said he was a virgin so I think that's a no.

 

[CatParty]

He already said he was a virgin so I think that's a no.

then he a loveshy

 

[HipstrsGonnaHip]

If we aren't descended from Neanderthals and there was indeed a migration out of Africa in which "humans" replaced Neanderthals

Are you really trying to reject the conclusions of the scientific community just because they don't say what you want them to say? You're like a global warming denier, but more autistic.

Why does everyone keep calling me "love shy"? I have never once identified with the term.

It's a nice way of saying "retarded hateful virgin"

 

[Wolf Fetuses]

healthy people like me

Oh, sweetie.

Speaking of which, what genetic features do you believe you possess that would make any offspring you produce superior to that of some random SLUT or JERK (I mean, chad)?

Oh and also, @Amud, would you insert a balloon in to your child's nose if you thought it would give them a more favourable skull shape? They are, after all, the vessels for your precious genetic information.

 

[Atsimuel]

then he a loveshy

I don't think that's entirely fair to people who are virgins by choice.

 

[meatslab]

I don't think that's entirely fair to people who are virgins by choice.

>implying he's a virgin by choice

 

[Amud]

1. Where is the source for these images? I would like to be sure that you've dated these skulls correctly.
2. These images are pretty much worthless for doing any kind of evolutionary ordination analysis without scale bars.
3. You are nowhere near qualified to make an assesement of the changing shape of these skulls over evolutionary time. I'm not qualified either, this is the sort of subject that requires computer programs and a metric shitton of statistics to do properly.

1. I got them off Google images. I will name them.

*La Ferrassie 1
*Saint Cesaire 1
*Predmosti 2
*Solutre 1
*Borreby
*Corded Ware skull
*Modern European skull

You can look up the dates if you are so inclined.

2. If we assume that Neanderthals and "humans" are different SPECIES, then we would expect their skulls to look different at a glance. We shouldn't need fancy computer data to determine who belongs to what species. There should be a clearly observable, visual demarcation between the Neanderthal skulls and the "human" skulls. As I have demonstrated, there is no such thing.

3. Yeah, because I didn't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a piece of scienmagistical paper, I must be incapable of examining pieces of bone with my eyes and making note of what they look like.

 

[Atsimuel]

>implying he's a virgin by choice

Oh god, no, he's totally a loveshy. I just know people who are virgins by choice and I wouldn't lump them in the same group as someone so bugfuck crazy.

 

[Tookie]

What does my post have anything to do with phrenology?

If we aren't descended from Neanderthals and there was indeed a migration out of Africa in which "humans" replaced Neanderthals, then if we look at the fossil record, we would see that up until whatever time the migration occurred, the people were Neanderthal, then after the migration occurred, there was a sharp transition such that the people had modern "human" phenotypes. I just showed you the fossil record and as we can see, there is no such sharp transition. Each successive skull I showed is less Neanderthal and more "human" than the previous one, with no major jumps that would indicate a mass population replacement with a different species.

A) The oldest skull you posted was from ~50K years ago which would have been around the time homo sapiens began migrating into Europe.

B) There would not have been a sharp transition as it was a gradual displacement over many millennia with homo sapiens and neanderthals living side-by-side.

C) Very early homo sapiens would have many of what you are terming "neanderthal" features. Furthermore, you're not sourcing these skulls as anything but "European" and you probably have homo sapiens and neanderthal skulls mixed together in your post.

 

[CatParty]

1. I got them off Google images. I will name them.

*La Ferrassie 1
*Saint Cesaire 1
*Predmosti 2
*Solutre 1
*Borreby
*Corded Ware skull
*Modern European skull

You can look up the dates if you are so inclined.

2. If we assume that Neanderthals and "humans" are different SPECIES, then we would expect their skulls to look different at a glance. We shouldn't need fancy computer data to determine who belongs to what species. There should be a clearly observable, visual demarcation between the Neanderthal skulls and the "human" skulls. As I have demonstrated, there is no such thing.

3. Yeah, because I didn't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a piece of scienmagistical paper, I must be incapable of examining pieces of bone with my eyes and making note of what they look like.

dude you dumb as hell all going to a community college. hows your job at mcdonalds?

 

[MerriedManJr]

What does my post have anything to do with phrenology?

If we aren't descended from Neanderthals and there was indeed a migration out of Africa in which "humans" replaced Neanderthals, then if we look at the fossil record, we would see that up until whatever time the migration occurred, the people were Neanderthal, then after the migration occurred, there was a sharp transition such that the people had modern "human" phenotypes. I just showed you the fossil record and as we can see, there is no such sharp transition. Each successive skull I showed is less Neanderthal and more "human" than the previous one, with no major jumps that would indicate a mass population replacement with a different species.

I guess I misunderstood. I had no idea I was talking to an anthropologist. I'm not qualified for such a discussion. Here is evidence that skeletons are pretty chill and fairly realistic though:

If you look closely at the dates you can pinpoint that the 420 dankness occured shortly after the migration from Africa.

 

[JU 199]

@Amud Are you Calvin Candie from Django Unchained?

The resemblance is remarkable.

 

[seagull]

I just showed you the fossil record and as we can see, there is no such sharp transition. Each successive skull I showed is less Neanderthal and more "human" than the previous one, with no major jumps that would indicate a mass population replacement with a different species.

There is no scientific literature to back up your claim. There is a theory that competes with the popular "Out of Africa" theory, but it has to do with the timing and number of humans who left Africa and interbred with Neanderthals. Even that theory says that our ancestors originated from Africa.

Please tell me, why should I accept your claims over those made by established scientists with years of research to back up their claims? If this is really so obvious, why are you the only one who thinks this way?

 

[Cuck Norris]

2. If we assume that Neanderthals and "humans" are different SPECIES, then we would expect their skulls to look different at a glance. We shouldn't need fancy computer data to determine who belongs to what species. There should be a clearly observable, visual demarcation between the Neanderthal skulls and the "human" skulls. As I have demonstrated, there is no such thing.

Wolves and dogs are different species of the same genus, in this case Canus. Let's have a look at their skulls.

Spoiler: Big Img

So which one is the dog and which one is the wolf? Demonstrably different species of the same genus. Just like Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis.

 

[Durable Mike Malloy]

dude you dumb as hell all going to a community college. hows your job at mcdonalds?

@mccafe @mccafe @mccafe @mccafe @mccafe @mccafe @mccafe @mccafe @mccafe @mccafe

 

[KillerBob]

What does my post have anything to do with phrenology?

If we aren't descended from Neanderthals and there was indeed a migration out of Africa in which "humans" replaced Neanderthals, then if we look at the fossil record, we would see that up until whatever time the migration occurred, the people were Neanderthal, then after the migration occurred, there was a sharp transition such that the people had modern "human" phenotypes. I just showed you the fossil record and as we can see, there is no such sharp transition. Each successive skull I showed is less Neanderthal and more "human" than the previous one, with no major jumps that would indicate a mass population replacement with a different species.

Amud, read this please: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1978547/

This paper basically says that whilst crianial data does occaionally suggest a possible multiple origin theory for modern humans, a more accurate analysis suggests otherwise. The skulls suggest one 'out of africa' origin for Homo Sapiens. Note that at NO POINT does it suggest that humans evolved from Neaderthals.

This paper took me a minute of looking to find. Please do some research using resources that arnt Nazi sites Amud. They make you look like a nutjob.

Sorry it takes so long for me to reply to this conversation. I'd like to repudiate all of Amud's points but he has the tendecy to spurge them out at quite a fast rate.

 

[Sunny-D]

If we assume that Neanderthals and "humans" are different SPECIES, then we would expect their skulls to look different at a glance.

It's almost like

they do.

 

[Amud]

It's almost like
View attachment 20222
they do.

And can you pinpoint the demarcation in the fossil record where the right side magically turned into the left side after Africans came into Europe?

And if we're not descended from Neanderthals, then how does Pete Postlethwaite exist? Shouldn't he have been killed by Africans 30,000 years ago?

 

[ChuckSlaughter]

50,000 year old European

30,000 year old European:

25,000 year old European:

18,000 year old European:

10,000 year old European:

7,000 year old European:

2,000 year old European:

Europeans today:

Can you pinpoint where the "replacement out of Africa" occurred? Because I sure can't. I see a continuous gradient of changing skeletal characteristics. They're always telling us humans came out of Africa, but I'm not seeing a sharp change in the phenotype of Europeans from "Neanderthal" to "Human" that would correspond with this migration.

Wait are you trying to show us that people have been busting their skulls apart for 30k years?

@Amud Here's a diagram that includes the phylogenetic relationships of the genus Homo. If you google for it, you will see similar and simplified trees. None of them support your conclusion that Homo sapiens descended from Homo neanderthalensis.
View attachment 20218

I knew that, but thanks.

I was being a hipster for you
Btw, I love the macintosh system 8 feel of this graphic. Aesthetic.