Liberals anthropomorphising Neanderthals

Ive seen many if those progressive liberals worshiping and anthropomorphiding Neanderthals despite the fact that they are a different species that went extinct thousands of years ago.

The liberals also forget that Neanderthals went to war with their ancestors and where aggresive, anti social, xenophobic warlords and yet they claim they are some sort of care bears.

Why is this in politics? By the way we have Neanderthal DNA, humans and Neanderthal's could breed and make fertile offspring meaning they are literally by definition the same species.

A)Because liberals have screwed up paleo-anthropological research by anthropomorphising hominins including Neanderthals, making resaarchers more childish and pacifistic and developing an emotional attachment to Neanders.

B)Having their DNA means nothing. Lions and tigers can breed but they are different species. And Human-Neanderthal hybrids where not always fertile. The first generstion hybrids had sterile males but fertile females. After backcrossing the fertile females to the maternal species fertile males appeared. This is something called Haldane's rule. And species has not consistent definition.

C)There are differences between Humans and Neanders that confirms they are different species:
-Neanderthals have short limbs while Humans have long limbs
-Humans are gracile while Neanders are robust
-Neanderthals have large eyes and chubby noses.
-Neanderthals where carnivores while Humans are omnivores.
-Neanderthals are anti social, xenophobic and live in tiny groups while humans are more social and live in larger groups.
-Neanderthals are promiscous while humans sre monogamous.
- Humans are neotic (conserve juvenile traits), hence why we dint have brow ridges. Neanderthals where not, hence why they had brow ridges and looked older.
-Neanderthsls are more aggresive while Humans are less aggresive.
-Neanderthals limit themseves to close range combat while Humans can use different combat styles.

All of the differences you mention can vary from race to race and genetic line to genetic line.
The most consistent species definition is the one I said "they can mate and produce fertile offspring" all others fail to account for many creatures defined as different species.
Lions and tigers genetically are the same species, like different types of house cats are the same species

A)No, no they dont. All the differences I mention are species-based differences. Humans are neotenic, hence why we dont have brow ridges, unlike Neanderthals. We are monogamous where as Neanders are promiscous. Those differences dont vary from races or genes, but from species. And if they do then explain why, every one of them. Also the Neanderthal genome causes humans to develop Neanderthal-like behaviours like aggression, promiscuity, and depression.

B)Consistent=/=absolute truth. And that definition is not helpfull since organisms like Archea reproduce asexually. So determining weather they are the same species or not relies on a combination of both morphology and genetics, and again you completeñy ignored Haldane's rule.

C)Lions and Tigers are not the same species because both are too genetically and morphologically distinct. Also Lioms are closer to leopards than to tigers, and i know you woudnt consider leopards and lions to be the same species. Also your comparing apples with oranges here. Cat breeds are not the same as felid species.

Neotonic features are an observable feature in ALL human species, the progression of them is the easiest way to identify species, or at least level of evolution at aglance. Modern humans do have brow ridges, albeit redused in size, most pronounced in Caucasoids and of them, Melanoids/Australoids most of all. Usually. Also more with taller, most robust Caucasions elsewhere.

You can't tell psychological states from fossils, that's silly.
You can, however, tell from a narrowing of difference between male and female size that monogamy became part of the question, and early on in human evolution. So your 'promicsuous" assertion, like the rest of your post, is nonsense.

Lions are closer to tigers, not leopards.

"Lions are closer to tigers, not leopards" Nope, its the opposite

Literally no dude. Only Humans are neotenic while other hominins are not. We are neotenic because we have weaker jaws, a shrunken face, no brow ridge amd a chin (grown in response to face shrinkening) while other hominins had brow ridges, stronger jaws, elongated faces and looked older. Where also attracted to youthful features, specially males, while other hominins did not. Also humans are a species.

Brow ridges keep growing until death in humans. The only thing large brow ridges indicate is that the bodies they found were old.

How pronounced they are varies with individuals, races, species. You can see this with infant chimps, which have larger ones than adult humans,

No it does not. Humans dont have brow ridges and infant chimps dont have brow ridges. Chimps develop brow ridges as they grow. And there are no "species" here because humans are a species.

Also there is no such thing as "race" as all humans are the same species.

Says the one who thinks that baby chimps have brow ridges and that Neanderthals are supposedely humans when they are not. And you also said that Lions where closer to tigers when studies show they are closer to leopards.

Let's see if I can put this in a language you can understand.
Remember Caesar in Rise of the Planet of the Apes when he was a baby? Them raised protusions that are his brows? THAT. Those are brow ridges.

Hope this helps!

Rise of the Pñanet of the Apes is just a MOVIE. The apes there are not even real, they are CGI. I mean they where seen walking upright and the chimps where larger than usual. If you want to debunk me show me a pic of an actual baby chimp and point out where are its "brow ridges".

Um, perhaps you should stop using Lord of the Dings as a reference guide.

And for the record I was compsring Neanderthals to the orcs from warcraft since btoh share seversl traits including being extremely aggresive, liking war, big muscles and carnivorous diet.

And perhaps you should do your research on primatology and biology. Baby chimps dont have brow ridges until they grow up. Neanderthals sre not humans as Humans are our species.

Um, kinda a lot.
Unfortunately I don't know of any Fantasy movies featuring chimps, let alone babies, so Sci Fi had to do.
Neanderthals were Orcs from Lord of the Rings! That is precious!

Bruh you cant use movies to study extinct animals. And no am not talking about the orcs from LOTR, am talking about the orcs from WARCRAFT

No they dont. And for the revord Neanderthals had short lifespans than humans and theybhave visible brow ridges. Therefor Neandies and other hominins are not neotenic while Humans are.

Also response to Modda:
A)For the last time human species dont exist because Humans are a species. And no they are not as neotenic is only unique to Humans, not Neanderthals. Heck, the skull of a Neanderthal shares more traits with the skull of an adult chimp while the skull of a Human shares more traits with the skull of a baby chimp, confirming neoteny to be unique to Humans. And no, thats not how you determine species. Species are determined by genetics morphology. Humans dont have brow ridges, your making things up, and for the record Caucasians have Nesnderthal genomes, hence why the have some neanderthal-like features.

B)Studying fossils can many tiems identify behaviours in extinct creatures. Differences in size for sexes dont dictate monogamy since thats a feature all great apes have. Monogamy was indeed ancestral in hominins (eg: Ardipithecines), however some species csn develop behsviours unusual to those of its close relatives. Lions for example live in groups despite cats being generally solitary. Neanderthals wjere confirmed to be promiscous after fossils found that they where competitive for mates, meaning they did not mate for life:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101103081915.htm

This also confirms rhey where more aggresive. Evidence also found that the Neanderthal genome causes humans to become more aggresive, promiscous, and depressed. Confirming this behaviours to common in Neanderthals: https://www.newsweek.com/neanderthal-dna-makes-people-more-aggressive-677733

C)Lions are closer to leopards than to tigers. Several phylogenetic studies have confirmed this: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Evolutionary-history-of-the-great-cats-A-Species-tree-of-the-genus-Panthera-estimated_fig1_318566394

A)For the last time human species dont exist because Humans are a species. And no they are not as neotenic is only unique to Humans, not Neanderthals. Heck, the skull of a Neanderthal shares more traits with the skull of an adult chimp while the skull of a Human shares more traits with the skull of a baby chimp, confirming neoteny to be unique to Humans. And no, thats not how you determine species. Species are determined by genetics morphology. Humans dont have brow ridges, your making things up, and for the record Caucasians have Nesnderthal genomes, hence why the have some neanderthal-like features.

B)Studying fossils can many tiems identify behaviours in extinct creatures. Differences in size for sexes dont dictate monogamy since thats a feature all great apes have. Monogamy was indeed ancestral in hominins (ex: Ardipithecines), however some species csn develop behsviours unusual to those of its close relatives. Lions for example live in groups despite cats being generally solitary. Neanderthals wjere confirmed to be promiscous after fossils found that they where competitive for mates, meaning they did not mate for life:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101103081915.htm

This also confirms rhey where more aggresive. Evidence also found that the Neanderthal genome causes humans to become more aggresive, promiscous, and depressed. Confirming this behaviours to common in Neanderthals: https://www.newsweek.com/neanderthal-dna-makes-people-more-aggressive-677733

C)Lions are closer to leopards than to tigers. Several phylogenetic studies have confirmed this: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Evolutionary-history-of-the-great-cats-A-Species-tree-of-the-genus-Panthera-estimated_fig1_318566394

tl;dr

Stop. lying.

Looks whos talking

Am not lying you are. Did you even read my comment.

No.

If you dont read my comment how are you suppose to even argue?

The liberals many times call Neanderthals "humans" even though they are not humans. Which means they gave the name of our species to a species that is not theirs. Further showing the left's obsession with anthropomorphising xenos.

They mean that Neanderthal is a type of human. Homo sapiens sapiens (us) is a type of human, and so is homo erectus, homo neandrethalis, Australopithecus, etc.

There are no types in biology. There are populations, species and breeds but no types.

Human is the name of our species, any species that is not ours is not a human.

Homo erectus is no longer a valid soecies as all its fossils where found to be from different hominins.

Australopithecines are not even part of Homo

Neanderthals are not humans because they sre not our species.

Human=Homo sapien

Neanderthal=Homo neanderthalis