>first humans with modernish features arose 300kya >were

>>133564406
>>133564406
t. evolutionist athiest cuck

Define "modern human"

>when you try to include all humanoids on earth as "modern human" and accidentally set the first human date back to 800kya because Papuans and aboriginal Australians are more related to Denisovan than to cro magnon.

>>133564785

hurrr durrr evolution isn't real.

My god, maybe you people are the real cavemen

>>133564839
Study pls. Last I checked, abos and Papuans just have a higher admixture (proto-abos got their dicky sticky with those weirdos).

File: IMG_3787.jpg (74KB, 640x1136px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 640x1136px

>>133564406
>he doesn't know

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/05/22/europe-birthplace-mankind-not-africa-scientists-find/amp/

>>133565062
What do you know about genetic drift? Someone 30% Neanderthal/Denisovan is arguably a pure Neanderthal/Denisovan because the genes they'd have today would be different.

Regardless, if you're too inclusive then let's make it Australopithicus and call it discussion over.

File: report-scientists-claim-europe-was-the-birthplace-of-mankind-not-africa-2-1.png (352KB, 427x720px) Image search: [Google]

352KB, 427x720px

>>133565401
>this is somehow better

Also, this might help.
http://www.evoanth.net/2017/06/06/humans-evolve-europe-graecopithecus/

File: indo-wp-kor-dh-60_screen.jpg (56KB, 960x643px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 960x643px

>>133565562
>Analysis of the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of the finger bone showed it to be genetically distinct from the mtDNAs of Neanderthals and modern humans. Subsequent study of the nuclear genome from this specimen suggests that Denisovans shared a common origin with Neanderthals, that they ranged from Siberia to Southeast Asia, and that they lived among and interbred with the ancestors of some modern humans, with about 3% to 5% of the DNA of Melanesians and Aboriginal Australians deriving from Denisovans.
>3% to 5%

>>133565562
>genetic drift
peed a little

Flawed reasoning though. Just because a later version of a Neanderthal would be different anyway, that doesn't make a 30% mix pure. Those 70% matter, humans need to be viewed as a hybrid.

>>133566207
It's plausibly not a hybrid.

You could be directly descendent on both sides from the same Neanderthal ancestor with no other admixture and still only have 30% relative human DNA. Comparing genomes like this is kind of tricky

>4% Neanderthal?
>88% banana?
K these numbers make sense.

Ah the missing link of evolution. Blacks.