If the aboriginal peoples of Australia had died due to some plague

>>3001024
Bump

>>3001034
Holy shit, look at that skull but at the end they can reproduce with every other race on earth so they are in fact Homo Sapiens unless a study shows that other species of humanity can reproduce with each other to prove otherwise.

The implications though, are quite rustling to many

>>3001024
Humans via reconstruction after anthropology sheds off it's psuedo science.

>>3001024
Yes. But it's possible that they would be considered a sub-species (but I doubt it).

>>3001024
They were local fauna up until pretty fucking recently. There'd probably be a lot of debate if there were none to mate to say for sure.

File: Zorse.jpg (14KB, 220x147px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 220x147px

>>3001045
Horses can reproduce with zebras and tigers can reproduce with lions so why would humans be any different?

>>3001074
>Breeding of different branches of the equine family, which does not occur in the wild, generally results in infertile offspring. The combination of sire and dam also affects the offspring phenotype.

>>3001057
That's actually not true:

>The myth that the Constitution included a reference to the Aboriginal people under a “flora and fauna” section is entirely erroneous. The words “flora and fauna” do not appear anywhere in the Constitution, nor did they prior to 1967. There was no “Flora and Fauna Act” either. No legislation referred to or classified the Aboriginal people in such terms.

http://blogs.usyd.edu.au/cru/2015/06/indigenous_recognition_and_con.html

>>3001024
They'd fully be human. Of course early archeologists would say they weren't most likely but looking at the skulls of non-modern homo this clearly isn't one.

It's literally just Robust, but like older skulls were more gracile like Mungo.

Tbh if you stop centering humaness to whites and read more about human evolution and evolutionary traits of "modernity" you'll see it.

>>3001024
At first they would probably claim that it's not Homo sapiens, but there are some key differences between the Aboriginal skull and the Neanderthal skull. Such examples include large brow arches but not an actual large brow ridge, Neanderthals having a more vertical face while Aboriginals have more of a horizontal face like the vast majority of modern humans, and the fact that the Aboriginal actually has a chin. Also, a Neanderthal's facial features were smoother and more natural. That Aboriginal guy is one of the more extreme examples of his people. And speaking of guy, there is a good chance that the skull on the right may have actually belonged to a woman. Modern human males in general have more archaic features than women do when it comes to our skulls, even though we are neotenous compared to Neanderthals.

tl;dr he's modern, if not ugly looking

File: eff779ea48e1d9cb54a41e9a71f187b2.gif (327KB, 557x708px) Image search: [Google]

327KB, 557x708px

>>3001106
>. And speaking of guy, there is a good chance that the skull on the right may have actually belonged to a woman. Modern human males in general have more archaic features than women do when it comes to our skulls, even though we are neotenous compared to Neanderthals.
I bet our "racialist" friends would say that these skulls also belong to different species.

>>3001080
>generally results in infertile offspring.
But not always

>>3001133
Because of Haldane's rule.

>>3001148

There are also other problems. I don't know if it applies to other animals, but we didn't find Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA in modern humans which strongly implies that human male and neanderthal female hybrids were infertile.

I'm sure none of this applies to aboriginal kids.

>>3001167
Either that or no self respecting Homo sapiens man would dare fuck a womanlet that was several times stronger than him.

Actually, considering this website, I wouldn't be surprised.

File: image.jpg (48KB, 320x426px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 320x426px

>>3001024
>when you realize that all hominids are humans,
Pic related Neanderthals.

>>3001167
According to Google it's the other way around human females with Neanderthal males. And I think that is because the we dominated and assimilated them like how spaniard males took indigenous Amerindian wives and not the other way around.

>>3001239
Source?

>>3001227
Those aren't Neanderthals at all anon.

>>3001227
>hominids
Chimps, Gorillas and Orangutans are also Hominids (or Hominidae)

>>3001045
The neanderthals could reproduce with humans but were not considered homo sapiens, instead their scientific name is Homo neanderthalensis.

>>3001796
See:

>>3001148
>>3001167
It was actually very hard for them to produce fertile offspring. Which is probably the reason why only 2-4% of human DNA has some traces of neanderthal DNA.

And nowadays, neanderthals are often called Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. Some scientists consider them a sub-species of Homo sapiens.

>>3001832
The same way we're considered a subspecies of Homo sapiens, specifically as Homo sapiens sapiens.
The question is, would the Aboriginals be Homo sapiens australensis or something?

Why is this website so racist?

>>3002039
>The question is, would the Aboriginals be Homo sapiens australensis or something?
The answer is no.

>>3001024
>Le aboriginals are dumb meme

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItYhTIRyF70


Go fuck yourself you stupid poltard

>>3001106
Neanderthals aren't the only other sub-species of humans, and if we're pulling the race card, the race that conquered the world is the one sharing the most dna with them.

>>3001832
The low percentage could easily be explained by a difference in population, low rates of interbreeding, and the fact that neaderthals were dying so their offspring with humans would be less fit to the survival situation. Earlier homo sapiens had a much higher percentage of neanderthal dna so its possible it just got watered down later.

>>3002226
Kek