Naturalist

EUROPEANS ARE NEANDERTHALS
OUT OF AFRICA DEBUNKED

Greetings readers, in today's exposition I will be dismantling the greatest anthropological psyop of our day and age, namely the out of Africa (OOA) theory, which claims that modern Europeans are descendants of sub-saharan Africans (Homo Sapiens) that started migrating into Europe some 50 thousand years ago, eventually “outcompeting” and “replacing” the native Neanderthal species completely.

As the title of the thread suggests, I take great issue with this assessment, most of all because it is used as a rationalization for continued mass migration into Aryan countries today, wherein they claim race is a „social construct” that has nothing to do with biological reality, and that we need to „open up our borders” for people that are supposedly exactly like us, yet act worse than us in every way. As anyone with a brain and a hint of intuition can tell, this is far from the truth.

The truth of the matter is that Europeans are of majority Neanderthal origin, and their purest descendants today are in fact Scandinavians, and there's not one area of scientific study that the academic establishment in the west hasn't infiltrated with their insidious lies in order to hide this fact, all in order to lower our racial consciousness.

My approach today will be to address this subject from the angle of physical anthropology (osteology and craniometry), genetics (coalescence and genome analysis), and some basic logic and intuition. The coalescent side of genetics might seem a bit too tedious for some, so feel free to skip over it, the other subjects will be way more understandable for the average layman.

To begin the presentation, I will first lay out the foundations of the OOA theory, following which I’ll address the claims therein. They go as follows:

1. At around 50ky BC Homo Sapiens started migrating out of east Africa into Europe

2. Homo Sapiens, through its "superior" genetic fitness and numerical superiority managed to outcompete the Neanderthals in some sort of proto race war, leading to the disappearance of the Neanderthals and other paleo-humans in Eurasia

3. All modern humans evolved in Africa 300-150ky (thousands of years) ago according   to Coalescent theory.

4. The Neanderthal genome has been fully reconstructed, and Europeans can only trace 1-4% of their genome to a direct Neanderthal contribution, indicating African origin as a certitude.

Let me start by addressing claims 1. and 2. first

At around 45kya when the first supposed Homo Sapiens remains started appearing on the continent, Europe was in the midst of its last glacial period, with glaciers covering a good portion of its northern landmass. 

Needless to say it was an unforgiving, extremely cold environment much more alike to modern day Siberia than modern Europe, with glaciers covering all of Scandinavia and permafrost extending all the way into modern day Hungary.

With this background in mind, I present to you todays protagonist: the Neanderthal

Neanderthals and their various predecessor species had been living in the northern hemisphere since at the very least 1mya (million years ago), to which we can date the first transitional forms of the Antecessor/Heidelbergensis species in Europe, which are considered a direct ancestor of the Neanderthals. 

It is highly likely that Antecessor itself was a descendant of even earlier Eurasian Erectus that lived in the northern hemisphere ever since 1.8mya (Dmanisi site, Georgia), however the evidence remains inconclusive due to scarcity of the remains in question, and the lack of transitional forms.

Neanderthals were the pinnacle of human evolution up to that point, with many unique physical characteristics:

1. Very robust and dense bones resulting in them being able to exert much more force on their skeletal structure without incurring injuries in the process, thus meaning they were stronger. Neanderthal skeletal joints are upwards of 75% denser than modern human equivalents (1). Their bodies were wider, with a deeper and broader ribcage, a wider pelvis, and shorter limbs. They were also noted as being able to heal horrible fractures and sustain a lot of damage.

2. Huge cranial volume (analogous to brain size), larger than that of modern humans. Late Neanderthal specimens just before the “sapiens invasion" such as Amud 1 show a peak cranial volume of 1740cm3 (cubic centimeters)(2), with 1600cm3 being the average for Neanderthal males. 

Needless to say this resulted in them exceeding the intellectual capacities of every predecessor paleo-human species, including the "Sapiens" that were "replacing" them, as brain size is directly related to intelligence.

As a sidenote: Its worth mentioning that Heidelbergensis reached 1250cm3 brain size by 500kya, which is approximately the average of modern Africans, meaning that they’re about half a million years behind Eurasians.

3. They were the first humans to evolve recessive pigmentation. Meaning that they possessed light hair, pale skin and most likely light eyes as well. In Neanderthals we have found MC1R and BNC2 sequences, which are most strongly associated with red hair, pale skin and freckles today. (3)(4)(15) This of course contributed to easier vitamin D synthesization under low-light conditions, but more importantly than that it evolved humanity towards a different spectre of beauty, thus increasing our biodiversity.

As for eye colour the research so far is inconclusive, since we haven't found the same “active” version of HERC2 in Neanderthals which is the primary contributor to blue eye colour today. However we have strong indications that this was indeed the case, simply due to living in northern latitudes for at least a million years in continuity. In light of all this speculation, and their propensities for recessiveness, we're inclined to say that they most likely had a lighter eye colour. (16)

It's also worth noting that drawing direct sequence comparisons is oftentimes misleading due to the decay the Neanderthal genome underwent. Therefore it doesn't come as a surprise that this results in genomic "difference" when it comes to certain genes (such as the HERC2 variant), meaning that Neanderthals possibly had them, however we cannot tell due to the decay their aDNA underwent. I'll go into more detail on this later.

Africans conquering Europe in an ice age?
(A Cro-Magnon saviour of the white race liberating the continent from judeo-Neanderthalian influence, according to some retards I met on twitter)

Mainstream science and media depict the Sapiens "invading" Europe as a bunch of sub-saharan Africans, so one can wonder a few things:

1. How did these African ubermensch somehow survive in an environment that is literally the inverse of the one they evolved for, somehow going from life in a hot savannah to a glacial climate overnight, all without the amenities of modern medicine?

We might not live in an ice age anymore, but African, Middle Eastern and South Asian migrants that come to Europe today still have to take vit. D supplements due to suffering from chronic illnesses such as rickets as a result of having darker skin. Today they survive thanks to modern medicine and supplements, how did they survive back then in much harsher conditions?

2. Researchers suggest that they used boats along coastal routes to get to Europe and Asia. We know from history that Subsaharans have been unable to reach islands just a few dozen kilometers off the coast of Africa, such as San Carlos and São Tomé and Príncipe, until Europeans brought them there during the colonial period.

If they were unable to reach a few islands off the coast of Africa by themselves, how were they then able to come to Europe 50 thousand years earlier on boats?

3. Most importantly, how were they, despite all these adverse glacial conditions and mismatched adaptations, able to wage a race war in Europe and WIN it, against a native species that:

a. Had evolved for its environment at least a million years longer than they did
b. Was stronger than them, with a tougher skeleton and thicker bones
c. Was SMARTER than them, with a larger brain and thus more skilled in the art of toolmaking and consequently warfare (subsaharans have an average brain size of 1250cm3, which is 25% smaller than that of Neanderthals(5))

This theory falls flat on its face just by questioning its premises.

Now to address claim 3. of OOA aka.
COALESCENT THEORY

Bear with me here, this is complex, but I’ll try to keep it simple.

Coalescent theory is a method in population genetics that traces genetic lineages back to their most recent common ancestor (MRCA). In OOA theory the MRCA of all humans is traced through female and male lineages. The female lineage is called the Mitochondrial Eve, while the male lineage is designated as the Y Chromosomal Adam, each named after the respective parts of the genome that they're calculated from (Mitochondria and Y-DNA). The Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is inherited from the mother, hence Eve, and Y-DNA is inherited from the father, hence Adam.

In OOA genetic theory, the age of the maternal MRCA (Eve) is estimated at 200-150kya, while the age of the paternal MRCA (Adam) is estimated at 300-200kya. These figures are WRONG and DOCTORED.

To understand why, we need to understand how the calculation is done. It uses mathematical probabilities to estimate when lineages "coalesce" (meet) based on:

Mutation rates in DNA.
Population size and structure.
Genetic diversity in a sample.

Geneticists select specific DNA sequences, such as mtDNA or Y-chromosome regions, that mutate at different rates depending on the evolutionary timescale they’re studying. You can envision this as a 'ticking clock,' where each tick, or mutation, represents a (multi)generational or temporal leap. The frequency of these 'ticks' depends on the mutation rate, which varies by sequence.

For example, if a sequence mutates on average once every 1000 years, observing 10 mutations across a sample of sequences from a population can be used to estimate genetic diversity and infer the time to the most recent common ancestor (MRCA). Under simplified conditions—such as a constant mutation rate, no multiple substitutions, and no admixture from outside populations—this might suggest an MRCA around 10,000 years ago.

However, coalescent theory accounts for random mutation patterns, population size, and genetic drift, using statistical models like Bayesian inference to provide a more "probabilistic" estimate of the MRCA with higher tolerances.

Issues with coalescence:

1. They cannot accurately estimate the planet's population throughout time, or at least into the paleolithic, at which point it just becomes a game of conjecture since the remains that we have are incomplete, and digging out every single dead paleo human is simply a Herculean task that will never be accomplished. Any population "estimates" are therefore dubious at best, since the paleo-sites we've uncovered make up only a tiny fraction of what might actually be out there, and we cannot know how many humans were tied to one particular spot at any given time, since hunter-gatherers didn't have "permanent" settlements. (6) Inferring population size through coalescent calculations is likewise a Sisyphean endeavour, as it depends on a predictable mutation rate, which cannot be reliably estimated as I explain in the next 2 segments.

2. The sequence sites that they chose to track are only viable for a limited period of time well outside the timescales that they claim in OOA coalescence, for instance variable sites with lots of mutation known as "fast clocks" only give better resolution (accuracy) for upwards of 30k years, after which they get saturated. While "slow clocks" ie. Those with rare mutations are only good for very long evolutionary time scales, such as tracking the chimp/human split that happened 6 mya. It also overlooks purifying selection pressures that might change the mutation rate of certain sites, thus messing up the calculation. (7) 

Tldr; Slow-mutating sites are reliable for deep time analysis but lack resolution (accuracy) for recent events; fast-mutating sites resolve recent events but saturate for deep divergences. There's no "goldilocks" site that could accurately map the timescales they claim happened in OOA coalescence (150-300kya), invalidating the calculation.

3. There's an interesting paper by Shi Huang that introduces the Maximum Genetic Diversity (MGD) hypothesis, which is now an established fact.

The Maximum Genetic Diversity (MGD) hypothesis posits an inverse relationship between genetic diversity and epigenetic complexity. According to this axiom, as organisms evolve greater epigenetic complexity (e.g., regulatory networks, developmental programs), their genetic diversity decreases in a punctuated manner. This occurs because epigenetic constraints limit the permissible genetic variation, effectively reducing the number of places available for mutations, including adaptive ones. Conserved sequences reflecting complexity are independent of the environment and inherited through the ages. Macroevolutionary leaps in epigenetic complexity impose stricter selective filters, limiting genetic variants and the number of changeable places.

It makes calculating time to divergence based on the accumulation of neutral mutations as per the molecular clock impossible, as most places are not neutral and mutations occur in overlap places leading to a quick saturation for most genes. So distance will only reflect the time it took to reach maximum diversity. For coalescence to work we need reliable sequences that are truly neutral, evolve slowly enough not to have saturated, as well as measure its mutation rate experimentally and hope it has not changed. As coalescent models grossly ignore these constraints, results are meaningless and contradictory, both with themselves and fossil evidences. (8)(9)(10)

To summarize: coalescence is a highly speculative discipline that cannot be used as a reliable tool for studying paleo-human history. It's prone to far too many variables that not even scientists properly understand, and slight errors in any can cause huge discrepancies. Therefore any result obtained through coalescent calculations can’t be treated as anything more than conjecture, and scientists are well aware of this, hence they learned to tweak the input parameters as they see fit, selecting for results more convenient to their premise.

That's pretty much what my critique of Coalescence amounts to, I would have preferred to be more empirical with it and minimize the theory, but such is the subject matter itself - concerned mostly with extrapolative mathematics. Needless to say this area definitely isn’t my strong suit, as most scientists themselves find it hard to wrap their heads around it, but it's the best that I could gather with the assistance of my good biologist friend @NaturalNat1488 . I do not specialize in genetics besides having a beginner level of understanding, and I do not claim to be infallible either, so I’m open to constructive critiques.

Now onto claim 4. of OOA
RECONSTRUCTED NEANDERTHAL GENOME

"Europeans only share 2% of their DNA with Neanderthals"
"Check out the Max Planck study duuuuude"
"I love to suck the cocks of (((David Reich))), (((Robert Sepehr))) and their whole anti-Neanderthal jewish clique just because I trust the soyence!"
“Neanderthals were jews, what’s my source? Studies done by jews, of course.”

I’ve been hearing this from the detractors, midwits, and other types of ignoramuses since forever, and for people who claim they’re “dissidents” they’re very eager to eat up the lies of the establishment, so let me set the record straight once and for all.

What is this reconstructed "high-quality" Neanderthal genome produced by the Max Planck institute?

"The genome sequence was generated from a toe bone discovered in Denisova Cave in southern Siberia in 2010. The bone is described in Mednikova (Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 2011. 39: 129-138)."

The bone in question is according to radiocarbon dating around 120 thousand years old, which means there exists a monumental issue with it - namely the molecular decay it underwent due to its archaic age. There's many types of decay that contribute to aDNA damage.

Hydrolytic decay - Water-induced cleavage of DNA bonds, causing strand breaks or base loss.

Oxidative decay - Reactive oxygen species damage DNA bases, leading to mutations or breaks.

Deamination - Loss of amino groups from bases (e.g., cytosine to uracil), causing misreading.

Cross-linking - Unwanted bonds form between DNA strands or proteins, hindering replication.

Depurination/Depyrimidination - Loss of purine or pyrimidine bases, weakening DNA structure.

Thymine dimerization - UV-induced bonding of adjacent thymine bases, distorting DNA.

Decay is exponential, with a rate driven by temperature, humidity, pH and other atmospheric conditions, modeled by the Arrhenius equation. I will run the Arrhenius equation for this Neanderthal bone under Altai cave conditions to estimate how much of the DNA has decayed. AI proves itself a useful helper for this use case.

You've read that right - 99.999355% of the DNA is decayed.

Now admittedly there are multiple methods that scientists can use to remedy decay, but only for certain types of decay such as - Deamination, Oxidation, Thymine Dimerization, and mild cases of Depurination. Even when a repair method is possible it only works partially - giving limited accuracy, especially for very old aDNA samples. That's without even mentioning that several types of decay like severe Hydrolyzation, Cross-Linking, severe Depurination and advanced Oxidation are completely unrepairable, and it's those types of decay that are more exacerbated in aDNA.

As a result of unrepairable decay large gaps start to appear when trying to reconstruct the genome, which is why Hg19 (the technical term for the Neanderthal genome in question) has 150 thousand gaps, as opposed to the 349 that we have in the baseline human reference genome GRCh38.

Deamination, particularly cytosine to uracil, is the most common "repairable" damage in Neanderthal sequences. UDG treatment has been widely used as seen in studies, but severe hydrolytic breaks and cross-linking remain unrepairable. (11)

Their "repair” techniques have proven shoddy, as shown in a paper by Daniel Criswell critiquing a previous sequencing project done by the Max Planck institute, that goes into very explicit detail on the decay mechanisms affecting paleo-human aDNA. (12) I’ve checked one of those mistakes that happened on a previous mtDNA sequencing project done by Max Planck institute, (AF142095.1 on HVRII region), and I can confirm that the original mistake mentioned in the paper of a tri-thymine insert intersecting a polycytosine tract on CSB2 (conserved sequence block 2) doesn’t occur on the Altai Neanderthal.

However while checking this I’ve encountered another bizarrity in the form of 2 cytosine additions on the Altai CSB2 that don’t appear in any other comparative human genome regions, and one of which doesn't appear in any other hominid and primate genome regions (except in Gorillas, which we diverged from much earlier than with chimps who don't have it, therefore ruling out the possibility of inheritance). AI suggests that this could be attributed to a simple polymorphism ie. variation, though it could also mean a case of error in the form of Polymerase slippage that happens during PCR amplification, where molecules may be redundantly inserted or deleted in repetitive regions. aDNA is more susceptible to this because of the high amounts of amplification it has to undergo to yield readable results, therefore increasing the chance of error. I don’t want to claim this explanation as certain, so I’d appreciate input from geneticists on this.

Decay is not the only type of problem that scientists run into when sequencing aDNA, another one that exacerbates inaccuracies is the contamination of paleolithic remains with modern human & non-human DNA. The issue lies again in PCR amplification techniques, due to their propensity to disproportionately amplify modern DNA as opposed to aDNA, causing the sequences of foreign organisms to be included in the “reconstructed” genome.

For the Altai Neanderthal in question they estimate 1% contamination with modern DNA. Max Planck certainly has a skilled workforce operating in sterile laboratories where this would be achievable, however I still have my reservations, because precaution can only help so much when handling remains that have long been exposed to atmospheric conditions, meaning that they’ve already been contaminated long before handling.

Max-Planck institute also claims a 50-fold coverage of the genome, meaning every nucleotide was scanned 50 times over, supposedly confirming its reliability, but to claim high coverage increases accuracy would be a form of circular reasoning, because they’ve only managed to read that which was already available to them, meaning repetitive re-sequencing did not undo the decay of the genome, it merely read it accurately.

For all the above-mentioned reasons this "high quality" Neanderthal genome sequencing project is nothing but a fiasco, and the fact that modern Europeans can only trace 1-5% of their DNA to Neanderthal homologues speaks more about the project’s failure rather than our actual relation to them, that is to say - the 1-5% that we do “share” in common with Neanderthals is only the part that they’ve managed to accurately reconstruct, the rest of the genome being awash with error!

In fact, ANY claims of a “perfect” genome being extracted from remains older than a few thousand years need to be outright discarded, because it's simply physically impossible due to the constraints of thermodynamics. 

Soyentists being arrogant, and midwits none the wiser and all too eager to indulge them, means the whole of society has this propaganda shoved down their throats in the end…

Now I have to ask a very important counter question to this narrative - why has there never been ANY attempt to reconstruct an original Homo Sapiens sub saharan African genome from the same time period? The people they claim all of HUMANITY originates from?

Of course they will bring up convenient excuses such as decay being faster closer to equatorial latitudes, which is of course true, but this still undermines the credibility of the Out-of-Africa theory if there’s not a single preserved original specimen of the species they claim “conquered” the World, and thus no referential genome to which we can draw comparisons from.

The truth is even if there was an original Homo Sapiens specimen preserved under the same conditions as an Altai Neanderthal, which they consider “well preserved”, we (Europeans) would share even less in common with it than we do with the Neanderthal.

The truth about so-called "Sapiens" in Europe aka. Cro-Magnon

In Europe the type immediately succeeding Neanderthals is the "Cro-Magnon", that used to be hailed as a milestone in the transition to the "modern" man: in reality, it's only present in Eurasia, with absolutely no presence in Africa.  Which is to say man in sub-Saharan Africa and Australia is not "modern" at all, as we will see its cranium changed very little for the last 300 thousand years, and it's mostly been for the worse.

A small tangent here - there was many different species of paleo-humans coexisting in Africa at one point which we can tell from various skulls present there, however all the more evolved specimens ie. those with a bigger brain, eventually died or moved out, since modern Africans share nothing in common with them, in fact these specimens probably weren’t even “African” ie. black, but possibly Eurasian returnees. This is a very interesting subject that I might elaborate on in a future thread.

Western (read: jewish) media, in no small part thanks to the (((academic))) community cough David Reich cough, portrays Cro-Magnons as black kangz fresh out the jungle that colonized Europe for the sake of their DIK, taking many war brides in the process. Of course this only happened in the minds of some very deluded and perverted individuals that belong to the jewish community, but as we all know jews and truth mix like fire and water, therefore let's set the record straight once again.

Cro-Magnon remains being younger than Neanderthal ones means that they’ve undergone the aforementioned effects of decay to a slightly lesser degree, which means a bit more of their aDNA has been preserved, although it's still terribly damaged and to a large degree unrepairable.

The little bit that has been preserved has led scientists to an interesting discovery - a MAJORITY of the Cro-Magnons had direct Neanderthal ancestry (13), with percentages varying depending on their degree of preservation, meaning remains that were better preserved shared higher similarities with Neanderthal haplotypes.

These percentages remain in the single digits, exactly like they are in modern Europeans, but given the fact that Neanderthal DNA itself has only been preserved in the single digits this doesn’t come as a surprise.

However, this allows me to pose an interesting question - can you guess which group of modern humans can’t trace practically any of its ancestry to Neanderthals? Modern sub-Saharan Africans. (14) The puzzle pieces should be falling into their place by now.

Soyentists as usual claim that the original Cro-Magnons were brown or even black skinned, with selection for lighter skin occurring only at the start of the Mesolithic intermediary period. First some basic logic - If it took Neanderthals and their predecessors almost a million years to evolve recessive pigmentation, how do they expect us to believe that Cro-Magnon somehow achieved the same in less than 30 thousand years?

The issue is that they make conclusions based on the lack of evidence rather than presence of evidence, for instance if they cannot find genotype markers associated with light skin today (e.g. SLC24A5, TYRP1, SLC45A2) in very old Cro-Magnons, or if they find ancestral alleles of those same genes, they immediately jump to conclusions that they had darker pigmentation.

It's a form of circular reasoning you see, the premise is that Cro-Magnon came from Africa, therefore the original trait HAD to have been dark, this is how they think. Its conjecture, plain and simple.

The funny thing is that they cannot find these genotype markers in Neanderthals either, yet they have no problem with admitting they had light skin, its a form of intellectual dishonesty to not presume the same for older Cro-Magnon, because we do know very well that the younger remains (ie. the better preserved ones) starting from 30kya start to show the exact same genotype markers associated with white skin in modern Europeans.

So what is the reason we don’t find these same markers in old Cro-Magnons (50-30kya)? There’s 2 possibilities, of which both could be true:
The aDNA has simply decayed beyond recognition as is the case with old Neanderthal remains, which means we can’t get a true reading of their original genome.

They had different alleles of the genes responsible for light skin, which were analogous in terms of purpose to modern ones. Recombinations and mutations happened over the years that changed their original gene morphology, that doesn’t mean the original alleles themselves would have made them BLACK.

So given their direct link to a Neanderthal lineage, their propensities for recessiveness, and the mtDNA continuity that they share with modern Europeans, I can claim the following with certainty: The original Cro-Magnon did not immigrate to Europe from Africa, because they were always here - they were Neanderthals.

ANTI-WHITE PROPAGANDA

The reason that soyentists jump to nonsensical conclusions, such as with their “predictive” pigmentation algorithms that make our ancestors look brown, is because they’re weaponizing science at the behest of the anti-White zeitgeist of our day and age, their goal being to alienate us from our very homelands. The intended narrative goes something along the lines of:

“Whitey was never native to this land to begin with, he’s a descendant of brown immigrants that conquered it aeons ago, so how does he dare complain when another group of brown immigrants does the exact same to him?”

One of the prime examples of this is Cheddar man and the way academia depicted him as being a black man with blue eyes, at which point it was plastered all over the media under colourful headlines such as:

The reason I'm showing you this is to demonstrate that despite their best efforts to upkeep a facade of objectivity, our academic institutions serve a politicized agenda that aligns with the overarching anti-White hatred permeating the modern west. They may pretend to be our friends that turn the wheels of societal progress, but they hide a dagger behind their back with nefarious intent.

Academia can no longer be viewed as the arbiters of truth, therefore we need to treat them accordingly, most of their claims, including those on Cro-Magnon pigmentation, should be massively scrutinized if not outright rejected.

That concludes the debunking of OOA, let's now move onto what really happened during the transition from Neanderthals to today's Europeans.

DEGENERATION OF NEANDERTHALS INTO CRO-MAGNON

Cro-Magnon wasn’t from Africa, and wasn’t black either. So how do we explain their appearance? Well it's simple, they were degenerated Neanderthals that started dying younger due to the most harmful phenomena in human history: Cooking.

When it comes to the transition of Neanderthal into Cro-Magnon, I advise you to consult the following infographic:

As you can see, the degeneration into Cro-Magnon occurred in a punctuated manner, with brain size and bone density (1) all gradually decreasing due to a shorter lifespan. 

Cooking is the main instigator of this degeneration, and I will stick by that assessment until the day I die, as the evidence for it is simply overwhelming, and I have personal experience as to how it was damaging my health. For further insight into this topic, I suggest you read my exhaustive thread on it that I have written last year: https://x.com/BadGoy15/status/1787091498288435525

NEANDERTHAL - CROMAGNON - MODERN EUROPEAN CONTINUITY

To begin with this section I would first like to dispel some misconceptions, first of all - Neanderthals did NOT look like the abominations that many reconstructions depict them as. 

They had robust cranio-skeletal features, but that doesn’t mean that they looked like some cave savages as in the usual slander pushed by soyentists and popular media.

Let's compare some important craniometric, osteological and genetic traits to see the continuity between Neanderthals, Cro-Magnons and modern Europeans.

As you can see skull continuity is clearly visible, with prominent supraorbital (brow) ridges persisting into the modern era. 

Perhaps the most important trait however could be considered the cranial volume, which although degenerated has still been preserved to some degree in certain European populations, for instance adult Finn males have an average cranial volume of around 1550cm3 (17), which although lower than Neanderthal average of 1600cm3 is still somewhat close, definitely means we’re not African, as theirs is 1100-1250cm3 depending on ethnic group.

The only noticeable skull difference is the protruding chin, visible starting from the Cro-Magnon era, itself another symptom of Neotenization. To explain the exact mechanism behind this I’ll quote to you this excerpt from the book Buried Alive by Jack Cuozzo, which I highly recommend. It goes as follows:

You’ve read that right, 400-500 years, don’t worry, I’ll address that shortly. Now to explain the mechanics behind it, as Neanderthals progressively aged into the hundreds of years their cranium was consistently expanding horizontally, leading to slight prognathism as the jawline was recessing backwards due to its growth rate being lower than that of the brow protuberance.

The reason this didn’t happen with Cro-Magnons, and conversely modern Europeans, is because we’re dying younger, and our skulls are smaller! Coupled with cooking introducing all sorts of malformations, it’s no surprise that certain types of divergence occurred when coupled with selective pressures that came later, leading to the creation of many new phenotypes, subphenotypes etc.

As for the skeletal features ie. bone density, bone thickness (femur, tibia cross section etc.) we definitely know that significant degeneration has occurred in this area as well, as was noted in Nutrition & Physical degeneration by Christopher B. Ruff, which records the degeneration that occurred from the Cro-Magnon Paleolithic remains to our current era.