Paleoanthropology

>>1546211

There are lots of jobs in archaeology, it doesn't pay well but you'll never be out of work.

Are you interested in "adding to humanity's book of knowledge", adding to your own knowledge, or treasure hunting?

Only the first requires a degree. The second is made easier with a degree. You don't need shit for the third.

>>1546250
First one and a bit of the second one. The third could be a bonus.

File: hominids1.jpg (64KB, 753x603px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 753x603px

Anyone else?

File: white_with_ardi.jpg (24KB, 459x500px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 459x500px

Anyone at all?

File: image.jpg (53KB, 500x573px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 500x573px

I have multiple questions about human evolution, please consider my post if you will!

1. How close are the human races to each other? Are we all Homo Sapiens Sapiens, or are we merely mostly HSS with large mixtures of Neanderthals and Homo Erectus?

2. Why did all the sibling species of HSS go extinct?

3. What meets the definition of "human"? Do all Hominids count as "humans" or are Homo Sapien Sapiens the only humans? If the later is true, what term do I use when I want to refer to all members of the Homo genus together (i.e. HSS, Neaderthals, Erectus + etc.)?

4. What is the correct way to live a life in proper fulfillment of evolutionary obligations?

5. If one wanted to increase one's evolutionary fitness, wouldn't exterminating all forms of life that you don't directly depend on for survival/reproduction be the best way to do it?

6. I went to Catholic school where classes on evolution were a joke, and our chapter on human evolution was dismissed entirely. So now I know much more about Darwin's lifelong Christian faith and how evolution doesn't conflict with Christianity whatsoever, than I do about evolution itself. Are there any good books on it that'll get me started? Preferably a pop-up book, so I can master the secrets of the universe in a half hour?

File: arudhipitekusu.jpg (52KB, 209x408px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 209x408px

>>1547830
1. Consisering race is below subspecies in terms of classification, I'd say pretty close.

2. They were either exterminated, died out naturally, or bred themselves to death.

3. All members of the genus Homo are technically "human," but the proper name for Homo S. S. is "anatomically modern human."

4. Not really sure how that would work, but I guess just live life.

5. We have no need for evolutionary fitness, since we now live in artificial environments, so that won't be necessary.

6. Welp, you fooled me, but since I made it this far I'm still gonna post this. Best book for the job would be "The Language of God" by Francis Collins.

>>1546626
This picture pissed off my paleo-autism.

>Neanderthal is Homo erectus
>Cro-Mag, which is actually just modern human, is Neanderthal

REEEEEEE

File: A_africanus_skull.gif (9KB, 127x111px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 127x111px

>>1548210
Actually, I think it's an australopithecus africanus for the neanderthal man.

>>1547830
>How close are the human races to each other?

Despite our differences, we're more genetically close to each other than two chimps in the same rainforest

>Are we all Homo Sapiens Sapiens, or are we merely mostly HSS with large mixtures of Neanderthals and Homo Erectus?

Both, as the percentage of non-Sapiens DNA is small. And we don't have Erectus DNA, but we do have Denisovan and a as-of-yet unknown species from West Africa that bred with the ancestors of the Mbuti Pygmies (might be Homo heidelbergensis).

>Why did all the sibling species of HSS go extinct?

If by sibling species you mean the species closest related to us (Neanderthals, Denisovans) it's because we outcompeted them during the Ice Age. We bred like rabbits, and their populations were comparatively smaller compared to ours. It had nothing to do with intelligence, as they were comparable to us.

>What meets the definition of "human"? Do all Hominids count as "humans" or are Homo Sapien Sapiens the only humans? If the later is true, what term do I use when I want to refer to all members of the Homo genus together (i.e. HSS, Neaderthals, Erectus + etc.)?

All members of the group Homo are humans, but what's considered the first "true" human is the archaic species Homo erectus, as from the neck down it looks like an oddly robust and tall Homo sapiens. We refer to ourselves as anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens). There are non-human hominins however, that can be basically described as bipedal proto-humans, like Australopithecus or Paranthropus.

I'm sure the rest of the people in this thread can answer the rest for you.

>>1548245
You're right, my mistake.

>>1546211
>Idaltu

You mean there was a true subspecies of human besides us?

File: 51xwPegEzlL._SX333_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (32KB, 335x499px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 335x499px

Is this book a meme?

File: who_pic4.jpg (55KB, 235x258px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 235x258px

>>1549529
Never read it, so I don't know.

>>1546211
I know very little about this subject, but why does the A. garhi have less of a brow ridge than the later H. erectus and H.rhodensiensis?

I was under the impression that the ridge allowed for larger chewing muscles, but wouldn't the earlier species be eating more dense plant matter?

>>1550190
I think it's listed more as a primitive offshoot rather than a direct ancestor, splitting as far back as afarensis. I think it should be more in line with Paranthropus, but that might just be me.

>>1550190
The brow ridge doesn't really do that, it's the saggital crest that does. All humans have is the saggital keel. Patrick Stewart has a good sized one.

Bumpo

>>1553595
>aquatic ape theory

Debunked

File: ster.jpg (166KB, 824x829px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 824x829px

>>1553825
What about the savanna hypothesis?

>>1553940
That one held up for a while, until Ardipithecus, a early "human", was shown to have lived a forest and was bipedal.

Maybe a mix of the two?

>>1547830
>I went to Catholic school where classes on evolution were a joke

Odd- my Catholic school taught the subject normally, though the teachers were mostly laypeople.

The RCC is quite accepting of evolutionary theory compared to most Protestant denominations

Is it true that the only people who deny evolution are people that dont understand it?

>>1556210
Same here, we were never taught any conflict between evolution and the church, though they do insist that adam and eve were real people and that all living humans are their descendants...

That wasn't really emphasized though, perhaps because its so embarrassing

File: see-the-monkey.gif (178KB, 700x607px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 700x607px

>>1558207
Meanwhile this shit was taught to us here in the states.
>>1558141
>>1555495

>>1556210

Pagans love this world.

Anthro major here, what the fuck can I do once I graduate?

>>1559245
teach

>>1549529
>New York Times Bestseller
Yes.

>>1546211

/HIS/ I NEED HELP

Does any of you know about times in past history where politicians would alternate power while pretending to not be allies to the people?
Maybe in Ancient Greece or Rome?