>this is the skull of Mungo Man, the Australian (40,000 years ago)
That's... not a human skull
>this is the skull of Mungo Man, the Australian (40,000 years ago)
>this is the skull of Mungo Man, the Australian (40,000 years ago)
That's... not a human skull
>That's... not a human skull
Yeah, that's because it's homosexual naledi, you stupid fricking moron.
These next three pictures are examples of proto-Aboriginals in Australia, not OP's picture. This one in particular is Mungo 3.
This is Mungo Man's skeleton.
This is a reconstruction of another skull found around the same site.
have a nice day. Immediately.
Looks like an incel
Well, homosexual naledi was only about 1.5 meters tall at best, compared to homosexual sapiens and homosexual bodoensis who both coexisted with them, they were puny.
looks not so far from abos
homosexual naledi doesn't even have a true nose.
>That's... not a human skull
Yeah, that's because it's an abo, you stupid fricking moron.
>have a nice day. Immediately.
Nice comeback, homosexual. I'm tired of you subhumans spouting misinfo on here.
>calling humans subhuman for calling out subhumans....
reported for a heckn' racism!
>40,000 years ago
Impossible, the entire universe is only about 6,000 years old.
>Nice comeback, homosexual. I'm tired of you subhumans spouting misinfo on here.
>having to actively browse reddit to find this shit and being so detached from reality it lives rent free in your head
wow epic own /misc/bro
absolute state of the seething /misc/gay ITT
Im eighth Abo and i can whack you with my arm and kill you instantly
do you think if abos went extinct like 10k years before europeans got to australia and we found their fossils today would they be considered modern homosexual sapiens sapiens?
Not at first, but genetic testing would prove that they were homosexual sapiens sapiens, specifically distantly related to Melanesians. Though to be fair, unlike Jebel Irhoud and homosexual sapiens idaltu, they actually fit into the range of modern homosexual sapiens.
All the alleged genetic testing is fake. Abos aren't human, and neither are blacks. You simply choose to believe in "experts" who can and are bought and sold to serve political and ideological interests because you are a mental dwarf who can't even admit to himself that the things he sees here
are clearly pre-human hominids of the lowest sort, even beneath African blacks, who themselves are archaic evolutionary throwback.
How can Abos be beneath blacks if Abos are evolutionarily younger than them?
Stagnation. Iirc abos actually lost numbers as a concept as time went on.
Because it's not like chimps stopped evolving when humans branched off from them. Blacks still evolved. Abos didn't they are an archaic human variation that was stuck on an island by themselves for 50 thousand years. Why do "basedintists" not know what happens to a species when they are stuck on an island?
>Small populations can behave differently from larger populations. They are often the result of population bottlenecks from larger populations, leading to loss of heterozygosity and reduced genetic diversity and loss or fixation of alleles and shifts in allele frequencies.[1] A small population is then more susceptible to demographic and genetic stochastic events, which can impact the long-term survival of the population. Therefore, small populations are often considered at risk of endangerment or extinction, and are often of conservation concern.
Cope anon, they're modern humans. No amount of Robert Sepehr tier racism is going to prove otherwise.
"modern humans"
i.e. sapiens who branched out and got stuck on Australia for 40 thousand years, stagnated due to genetic isolation. While r1b chads were evolving to become the dominant human species. But yeah sure anon a sapiens is a sapiens is a sapiens!
Deranged
populations can behave differently from larger populations. They are often the result of population bottlenecks from larger populations, leading to loss of heterozygosity and reduced genetic diversity and loss or fixation of alleles and shifts in allele frequencies.[1] A small population is then more susceptible to demographic and genetic stochastic events, which can impact the long-term survival of the population. Therefore, small populations are often considered at risk of endangerment or extinction, and are often of conservation concern.
imagine hating science. Are you an abbo fricker or something?
>Small populations can behave differently from larger populations. They are often the result of population bottlenecks from larger populations, leading to loss of heterozygosity and reduced genetic diversity and loss or fixation of alleles and shifts in allele frequencies.[1] A small population is then more susceptible to demographic and genetic stochastic events, which can impact the long-term survival of the population. Therefore, small populations are often considered at risk of endangerment or extinction, and are often of conservation concern.
So Black folk are more genetically fit than whiteys?
their population was very low until 100 years ago
blacks would be extinct if not for White/ asian intervention
no one said it was
That skull is not Mungo Man but It's homosexual Naledi skull from South Africa.
>Oi, woit dog. Ya bein ricest?
>oh no we burnt down all the lush rainforests of australia
>now we are a small population living on what amounts to a barren wasteland
>40 thousand years later
>huffs petrol while using the road as a bed while r1b mega chads build tehnological megaliths.