81–90 of 142 posts
All the article seems to be based on the Out of Africa hypotesis, but what about the multiregional hypotesis?
> Humans left Africa and began dispersing throughout the world at least 120,000 years ago, but the genetic isopoint occurred much more recently—somewhere between 5300 and 2200 B.C., according to Rohde’s calculations. All the article seems to be based on the Out of Africa hypotesis, but what about the multiregional hypotesis?
The strong multi-regional hypothesis is essentially a dead issue; didn't survive contact with modern genetics. There's now some evidence for regional admixture for genetics from archaic humans with Homo sapiens, and this is sometimes called (kind of misleadingly, IMO), the weak multi-regional hypothesis.
> Humans left Africa and began dispersing throughout the world at least 120,000 years ago Haven't recent discoveries undermined this theory?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article is saying that every person bears some relation to each other, even among distant groups. No further back than 3500 years ago existed a person who was a common ancestor to every currently living human being.
3500 or 35000?
"Monte Carlo simulations suggest the MRCA was born surprisingly recently, perhaps even within the last 5,000 years, even for people born on different continents."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another important point here is that genes don't divide infinitely, so that if you go back some distance, you start finding ancestors from whom you actually didn't get any DNA. The book Who We Are and How We Got Here talks about this. When DNA recombines at conception, it only snips and stitches in a fairly limited number of places. It doesn't 'mix' finely like paint. It's more like taking two short pamphlets of ~25…
I agree with you about the "noble" lies. You wrote something else that I have never seen before and that seems quite interesting: > When DNA recombines at conception, it only snips and stitches in a fairly limited number of places. It doesn't 'mix' finely like paint. I had always assumed that clearly recognizable traits that children inherit from parents are simply based on the large influence of certain small pieces…
This seems like a clearly recognizable inherited trait, based on a large influence of certain small pieces of DNA. The abstract mentions eye color as well.
While this article's content isn't exactly wrong, the Wikipedia on "Identical ancestors point" gives some important context for what's actually being asserted: All living people share exactly the same set of ancestors from this point back, all the way to the very first single-celled organism. However, people will vary widely in how much ancestry and genes they inherit from each ancestor, which will cause them to have…
Another important point here is that genes don't divide infinitely, so that if you go back some distance, you start finding ancestors from whom you actually didn't get any DNA. The book Who We Are and How We Got Here talks about this. When DNA recombines at conception, it only snips and stitches in a fairly limited number of places. It doesn't 'mix' finely like paint. It's more like taking two short pamphlets of ~25…
Well, for a start, this is completely wrong. Dogs diverged from wolves 20-40,000 years ago (lots of ambiguity over where exactly the divergence should be called), but from a now-extinct wolf species. While dogs and wolves _can_ interbreed, it doesn't happen naturally all that often (and when it does, it's pretty much all unidirectional; dog to wolf). Humans don't have the same issue.
A chihuahua, of course, is a result of deliberate and extreme forced breeding of a sort that (thankfully) has not really been practiced on humans. The closest parallel might be certain European royal families who had severe genetic diseases and abnormal physiology due to repeated inbreeding, but those were much, much less extreme. Dogs, though, were subject to fairly dramatic artificial selection from the start.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There might have been multiple separated inbreeding groups. Yes these groups are related among themselves but not inter-group.
The article is saying that every person bears some relation to each other, even among distant groups. No further back than 3500 years ago existed a person who was a common ancestor to every currently living human being.
Perhaps you're off by a 0 or two...?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's no coincidence that people with African genetics always win sprints and marathons in the Olympics. This is a lie, and you know it. Many people of non-African origin do win such sprint and marathon contests. I suspect what you are really trying to get at, in as few words as possible, is a typical the racist trope: that Africans excel in mindless physical sports, while being inferior in the intellect. However, f…
Korean people are genetically shorter than other races. Do you dispute that this would give them a profound disadvantage in basketball, all else equal? The narrative of all races being functionally the same phenotypically is prima facie absurd as even the most simplistic armchair observation reveals. Anyone who denies that Korean people have a genetic distadvantage in basketball must be acting in bad faith, and if th…
I bet the height difference in Koreans between the different generations alive today is quite different from one another.
As for Olympics 100 years ago. Are you for real? Most of Asia was under the thumb of Imperialism. They weren’t exactly positioned to “send their best”.
How many African nations participated in 1920? Another continent dealing with Imperialism.
Astraloid - Indian, Pakistan, Bangladesh etc
Mongaloid - Chinese, Taiwan, Japan, Malaysia etc
Negroid - African, black
Causcuroid - white (including Jews, they are not special like they think!)
Of cause some of these descriptive terms that are proper names would be classed as 'raciest' these days because of them few that think they are special and not gentiles!
> Humans left Africa and began dispersing throughout the world at least 120,000 years ago Haven't recent discoveries undermined this theory?
No. There's some evidence that Homo sapiens, after distributing itself, had some degree of regional admixture from archaic hominids, which may be what you're thinking of.
Niggers are niggers! Otherwise known as Negroid.
Whites are white! Causcoroid
Middle Eastern are middle Eastern! Astraloid
And Asian are Asian! Mongaloid!
Fucking Jews have made it so everything anyone knows is a lie! That was always their plan!
'once everything the general public know is a lie, we have succeeded!'
'I never let schooling get in the way of my education'