Comments by "Pickle Rick" (@TmanRock9) on "Weird History" channel.

Dark skinned people actually where around before modern light skinned people ( I say modern because we could have had light skin when we started to lose our fur and then developed dark skin only to redevelop it again when we left Africa. White skin doesn’t appear to become dominate until 8000 years ago in Europe. This means that before this time most people where verging shads of dark from black to brown to olive.
3
There is no such thing as pure human Africans change genetically every generation like all people. Neanderthals came from the same exact group of humans we did in Africa.
3
They lived in larger groups so they without a doubt communicated in some way, and since they where 99 percent identical to humans it seems reasonable to assume they had primitive language. As for boats I’ve never even heard them suggest such. There is no such thing as a “true homo sapian” modern Africans are genetically distinct from the first homo sapians 300,000 years ago. Mutation occur every single time reproduction does by the dozens You think early dark skinned humans never lived in caves? You are genetically false we have found plenty of human remains in caves and guess what they have dark skin from asia to Europe. Even our early human ancestor before homo sapians who where dark skinned and also lived in Africa have been found to live in caves. There has yet to be African remains found in a cave as far as I’m aware but fossilization is rare and when their ancestors do it and their relatives do it then it seems unreasonable to think they didn’t. Actually white skin didn’t become dominate in Europe and Asia until the time of farming some 30,000 years after interbreeding. And the traits that humans have for light skin are not all found in Neanderthals meaning we evolved it independently. So yes dark skinned people did indeed turn into light skinned people without interbreeding.
2
Genetics and fossils. Neaderthals dna is different than that of our species. Many neaderthal fossils have been found as well showing that they have morphological differences that aren’t due to genetic defects but due to them haveing different dna than us.
2
@rastafari3972 a different species in the human genus meaning we have to be related. Where do you think they came from if not Africa? Population evolve together and we could breed therefor we share an ancestor, it’s cute when little guys like yourself try to pretend you know what your talking about though.populations evolve together so Neaderthals came from the exact same group we did. Literally just take your own advice and Google what Neaderthals are and then Google where their ancestors homo Erectus came from. I pity your public school education clearly they failed you.
2
The same amount as modern humans.
1
@jeffcarroll1002 based on the genetic similarities between us the fact that we could interbreed, and the fact that Denisovans had a fused Chromosome just like us making 23 pairs instead of 24 is evidence enough to suggest that Neanderthals also had them since Denisovans diverged from them after Neaderthals diverged from us. All in all from what I can read we can’t tell the amount of chromosomes Neanderthals had by studying their DNA yet since Neanderthals dna we have is badly degraded.
1
Not really, they have a more defined brow ridge but the skulls are distinct from Homo sapiens as-well as the rib cage, muscle mass and body size.
1
What do you mean “more evolved” ? If you mean better than this doesn’t work because people without Neanderthal dna still exist. Good or bad is based on survival and as long as an animal is alive it’s no better than any other living species.
1
@serendipityculture1679 we only have roughly 2 percent Neanderthal genes only accounting for protein coding regions, which is extremely small. there is no indication that they are responsible for a greater intelligence (especially when we don’t think they where more intelligent). And there is no reason to assume IQ results are because of intermixing that occurred over 30,000 years ago.
1
We can tell because Neanderthals existed at the exact same time as us not before not after, in the exact same place.also we share dna with the Neanderthals that lived at the same time as us and not all humans share this dna. The earliest human dna we can find does not have Neanderthal dna, nor do any of the dna we found in fossils in Africa have Neanderthal dna. If it was from common ancestry all humans would share this dna and Neanderthals would live before our species even existed, we would also see that all of the old homo sapian dna found in fossils would contain Neanderthal dna but it doesn’t.
1
Where? Homo sapiens are related to Neaderthals through inbreeding that occurred roughly 40,000 years ago. And before that Neaderthals and homo sapians share an ancestor in africa about 800,000 years ago.
1
@Shamsi419 I’m not sure how an anthropologist could even tell since it’s not really their field of study. biologist have proven they could reproduce using genetics.
1
@Shamsi419 I must have missed it, if anything then it might be that most offspring weren’t fertile with a rare few being fertile, perhaps similar to mules but maybe not as rare. I’m interested where they get this idea from since Neanderthals and humans weren’t separated by that much genetically and since Denisovans had the fused chromosome 2 it stand to reason to did Neanderthals. So they weren’t that different genetically and had the same amount of chromosomes so I figure they could breed without a problem.
1
@Shamsi419 why would it not “blend” breeding relays on how closely related species are and how many chromosomes they have. Evolving from another species isn’t the same as breeding with another species. Evolving from another species just happens with gradual mutations and natural selection. Homo sapians are their own separate species, in may cases species within the same genus can breed. Homo (human) is a genus and based on genetics we know that Homo sapiens and homo Neaderthals can breed. Ah okay I see, I’ve heard this before so it’s as I said. Most of the times the hybrid offspring either died or was infertile. But it seems that if a Neanderthals female mates with a homo Saipan male then the results would be a little different. I’ve heard this before but I could never find any solid evidence of it so I’ll have to check. As I said us and Neaderthals where extremely closely related so we weren’t that different genetically, but perhaps they did have mutations that mad interbreeding mostly impossible.
1
@Shamsi419 I guess the Homo sapiens that slept with Neanderthal woman. They looked extremely similar, Neanderthals are 99.7 percent identical to us.
1
@donHooligan nothing like playing down the Holocaust, im sure humanity is lucky to have you as a member. Also 90% of the native died of disease meaning less than 6 died of actually genocides or conflicts. But I guess 6 millions is a little meaningless number to you so why are you talking about it?
1
@samaelilith6099 maybe pshhecdelics played a role in our religious belief but for it to play a role in our evolution is unsupported and doesn’t make sense. Mushrooms do not cause mutations for intelligence nor do any drugs therefor they do no cause intelligence. There is also no selective pressure for eating mushroom or ingesting drugs after intelligence has already evolved. It just doesn’t make any sense really.
1
@samaelilith6099 that doesn’t make sense, the boost it gives isn’t genetic so it has no affect on offspring. The brain wouldn’t increase because of this.it maybe a benefit to hunter but just haveing better vision genetically is more of a benefit. Once you evolve better vision what’s the point of taking drugs? How do drugs use cause the mutations for worse vision to die? The answer is they don’t the environment does. Evolution has to select genetic change drug use is not a genetic change. again I doubt drugs provided anything to our evolution. Maybe our religions but there is no selective pressure selecting drug using apes over none drug using apes.
1
@samaelilith6099 I know it doesn’t change genetics. You dont need to experience something to understand it this logic is just faulty. You don’t need to stand on the sun to know it’s hot. I know it’s a hypothesis but it just isn’t supported. The theory of evolution explains it fine the only things left to explain are exactly which pressure selected which changes. We know intelligence came about through mutations, and not drug use. This is demonstrated by observed mutations today and natural selection at play. The only question is why was intelligence selected in our species and really you can think of a million reasons why. How is this proof of everything? I don’t understand? I guess it would be pretty boring, but we should accept science.
1
@samaelilith6099 the explanation for the diversity of life isn’t going to explain the origins of the universe. Evolution doesn’t even attempt to explain anything in physics. Evolution just explains why we have all these animals and not just one kind of animal and nothing else. String theory in itself isn’t even really supported it’s more of guess work at this point, with some math supporting but nothing is certain about it. We can’t tell if all things are made up of interacting one diminutional string we can barely make out what quarks are which would be much bigger in comparison. Nothing before the Big Bang is known and our understand of reality breaks down.and we haven’t found anything smaller than a quark but we can’t really even make quarks out they are so small.physics is a completely different beast from biology.
1
@samaelilith6099 the Big Bang? No not really, the Big Bang doesn’t affect our genetics. Maybe an argument can be made that the Big Bang created our universe allowing for animals like us to form but we have no concept of how universe form so it’s hard to say. There is no telling what caused the Big Bang, our understand of reality breaks at that point or better yet reality itself changes at the point of the Big Bang. Math breaks down and becomes nonsensical and no observations can be made about what happening before. Yes evolution is only about biology and not physics or even the origin of life. They are separate ideas or fields of study. Evolution only describes how life diversified and continuous to do so. So it’s explains how all modern life came about, but not the origin of life itself that’s also a different field of study. They don’t belong together, if the Big Bang was proven false it would have no affect on evolution.they might tend to be put together in presentation but only as an example of what humans know so far up to this point.
1
@samaelilith6099 I can only speak one language so I’m not going to judge, i honestly couldn’t even tell.
1
Who’s we? You are also a homo Saipans. Homo sapiens did not die out.
1
@rastafari3972 there is no such thing as a pure anything in biology it’s a none sense term used by people like yourself who don’t understand genetics. Changing genetically for the last 300,000 years hardly seems original, but to smooth brains like you I guess anything is possible.
1
@rastafari3972 I agree go back online and read as best as you can little feller, stop being such a knuckle dragger.
1