Who were the first humans?

>>1876751
Not monkeys, put your delusions to rest.

Homo sapiens sapiens were the first homo sapiens sapiens.

>>1876751

Adam and Eve.

File: ряд-черепов_03.jpg (116KB, 900x714px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 900x714px

>>1876780

heidelbergensis, started dropping skulls around 600,000 years ago. all anatomically modern humans descend from this homonid, after that there were branches such as neadnerthalis and it becomes more subjective. There is evidence that heidelbergensis had sentimental practices associated with their dead, they would be the first homonids to display this trait.

you could also make an argument for erectus, which heidelbergensis is an offshoot of, but that's more difficult.

your OP pic is probably an australopithecus, which would be hard to argue as being "human" by modern standards, but were almost definitely our ancestors.

File: knm_wt_15000.jpg (38KB, 490x254px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 490x254px

>>1876830
Nah, that's Turkana Boy, a representative of Homo Ergaster, the African homo erectus.

>>1876830
also, I forgot to add, if you want to mess with a delicate subject, you could consider cro-magnon as the first humans, around 40,000 years ago spreading out into asia, europe and north africa from the fertile crescent. this argument considers sub-saharan africans and australasians non-homo sapien, and this is actually probably an accurate description, though the modern socio-political setting isn't ready to make such distinctions. that aside, there are no humans on earth who have spent more than around 200,000 years in genetic isolation, and there's no objective data that argues that sub-saharans or australasians are "inferior" in any way to fertile crescent kids, so you're doing nothing but spouting baseless opinions if you try to make that argument. I'm just being an anthropology nerd who's bitter about the delicate classification of modern humans, I just want accuracy bro.

>>1876811
Care to elaborate?

>>1876801
This is the correct answer.

>>1876857
>this argument considers sub-saharan africans and australasians non-homo sapien

Why would Australasians be grouped in with SS Africans in this regard? They're some of the most far removed populations on earth.

>>1876751
Persians

>>1876863
Read the Holy Bible.

File: HomoHabilis.jpg (151KB, 800x1067px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 800x1067px

These things make me giggle

The thought of them just chimping around on two legs banging rocks together is unbearable

ooga-booga!

>>1877765
I prefer the Quran.

*tips turban*

>>1877729
they aren't grouped with them. they are just both groups of people that had no cro-magnon DNA natively, whereas all indo-europeans, asians, and native americans descended from cro-magnon.

>>1876857
Africans and Australian Abos aren't related

>>1877787
You know blacks are actually many times smarter than Habilis right? Habilis could only make simple stone tools while blacks can make bows and arrows along with spears

>>1877813
Abos are closer to blacks than any other human group on earth since they are the earliest exo-African humans.

>>1877836
Genetics says no

Their closest relations are southeast asians and papuans

>>1877787
habilis was fairly intelligent, they had a pretty comprehensive toolset, as opposed to previous hominids which used hand axes and before that a simple bi-facial cobble.

>>1877813
did I say they were? lrn2 reading comprehension

File: abofig2.png (48KB, 300x441px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 300x441px

>>1877836
That is blatantly false.

>>1877850
>southeast asians and papuans
No surprise since those are humans in the same race as Abos.

>>1876751
>define "humans"

>>1876850
>Homo Ergaster, the African homo erectus.
He must have been one ugly son of a bitch.

>>1876751
Whites

File: BonesofTurkana_RLwTurkanaBoy.jpg (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>1878014
He's the little guy on the right next to his discoverer, Richard Leaky.

>>1878074
Hmm. Looks more normal than an Aussie abo. How accurate is the reconstruction of his face and his gait?

File: schwartz-erectus-variation-2014.jpg (34KB, 600x470px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 600x470px

>>1878092
Since the skull is kinda busted around the eyes they have to go off of other homo erectus skulls. Also, considering their bodies differed only slightly (growth rates), they could most likely walk like us.

>>1876830
>all anatomically modern humans descend from this homonid
as are neanderthal and denisovan and maybe more. you must either go back to first species of homo or go forward until you find someone who gave birth to homo sapiens and only homo sapiens.

File: download.jpg (9KB, 251x201px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 251x201px

>>1876751

Neanderthals were superior to early modern humans btw

>>1879588
Then why are they all dead?

>>1879778
The inferior modern humans produced more offspring and were able to absorb the sparsely distributed Neanderthal populations as they spread out of Africa.

>>1879950
This is the most plebeian way to think and does nothing to further our understanding of Neanderthal society and culture

>>1879990
Can you explain what you believe actually happened?

>>1879588
In some way yes but they also couldn't make it so I guess they weren't better at anything that actually matters

File: 1424737648736.jpg (67KB, 384x372px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 384x372px

>>1879950
How can humans be "inferior" if they won?

Modern humans were, by definition, more biologically fit than Neanderthals and were therefore superior.

I mean, the deciding factors of superiority are power and population.

>>1879778
>Then why are they all dead?
They're not. I'm one of the last neanderthals. Recently some of you homos tried to kill me 1488 of you died in process and I've escaped with barely a scratch. Later on, I've seen bison on the street so I've started to run after it because I was hungry, I've caught it, threw it up in the air and jumped after it. I was so fucking hungry that I ate it before it fell down. Then I went back to my underground bunker to prepare for sapiens genocide.

Obviously saps are inferior to all of this and won't believe me but I don't give a fuck, saps are not learning animals and neither they are supposed to survive the upcoming genocide.

>>1880013
My point is not that it's necessarily wrong but working from inferior/superior quantity/quality tropes is pointless. It's based on way too many assumptions. For example not too long ago some researchers postulated that the neanderthals had a limited range of language and were outcompeted by way of this limitation; this idea is coming under widespread criticism. So tell me as you made the claim, how were neanderthals superior? How do we know homo sapiens sapiens reproduced at a higher rate and/or had lower infant and child mortality rates?

>>1876863

Sure.

The first human being was Adam, handcrafted out of clay by God, into whose nostrils was breathed the Breath of Life, the Holy Spirit, making Adam a living being.

The second human being was Eve, made to be a helper to Adam out of one of his ribs.

We all descend from Adam and Eve, the first two human beings. Science is slowly catching up to this concept with "Mitochondrial Eve", the incontrovertible evidence that we all share the same mother.

>>1880060
You do realise how much inbreeding this version implies?

Does anyone here have a concrete counterargument for the out of africa theory?

>>1880060
I thought the second was Lilith, also crafted of clay to be a companion and equal to Adam? Except in his childish fear of being cucked he got pissed off because she wouldn't do as he said. So he bitch whined to God for "something better," then we got boring assed Eve who won't do anything kinky and only had intercourse in the missionary position for the sole purpose of procreation. That's what the rabbi told me. Dumb assed Adam.

>>1880050
I should have clarified what I meant. I believe an individual neanderthal man would have been superior to an "equivalent" early modern modern human man. But yes, by definition Homo Sapiens Sapiens is the "superior" species/subspecies.

>>1880059
>So tell me as you made the claim, how were neanderthals superior?
My reasoning for this is based on the vastly superior physical strength of the neanderthals, the larger brain size (the impact on intelligence is debatable due to the more archaic shape of the neanderthal skull, but I think until proven definitively otherwise it remains a valid point) and the technologies that neanderthals harnessed.
>How do we know homo sapiens sapiens reproduced at a higher rate and/or had lower infant and child mortality rates?
We don't, but the concept of them being absorbed by incoming homo sapiens sapiens does provide a good explanation for how Neanderthals disappeared while leaving traces of their DNA in non-Africans. Also, there is some hard evidence to back it up, for example Neanderthals needed much more food to sustain themselves, and considering this combined with the cold climate they lived in, it makes sense that they would have much smaller population sizes.

>>1880075
It seems fairly illogical to me. The essence of the out of Africa theory is that continually more anatomically modern forms of humans developed in Africa and then spread out to the rest of Eurasia. The "archaic" forms of earlier waves seem to have undergone little to no further deviation away from that of their ancestors that had left Africa, despite undergoing new environmental demands. These groups also never seem to reverse colonize Africa (multi-regional), even though the assumption with Cro-Magnon is that the ancestral population had come out of Africa; despite relying on an archeological record primarily outside of Africa.

>>1880067
Yes and no.

It also bottlenecks at Noah's three sons and their wives, at one time the only surviving human beings on the planet.

>>1880099
No, that's occultist nonsense.

>>1880130
You mean like aliens seeding earth with humans, the aquatic ape theory, and man being created out of clay?