Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Blacks are the only one without any admixtures with Neanderthals, while Europeans, Asians, Middle Easterners, Native Americans, South Asians, etc. are all mixed with Neanderthals.
The research does not say what you claim it says. For example, most African Americans are black, but are not indigenous sub Saharan Africans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox Terrier
I remember a time not too long ago when we humans considered Neanderthals to be 'cave men', lacking in intelligence, low-brow, non-verbal, and ignorant.
Suddenly, with the knowledge that everyone except sub-saharan Africans supposedly have some Neanderthal genes, Neanderthals are being touted as intelligent and innovative, and we are supposed to be proud that 'we' have Neanderthal some blood, small as it probably is.
Gee, I wonder why our perceptions have changed?
(it's not the scientists who are promoting this 'pride', either)
Those claims were not based on science though. The scientific theory is that neanderthals had a high IQ, but, IIRC, the remaining genes didn't present any significant advantage outside of adaptability. Interestingly, some neanderthal genes were bred out in areas that they were supposed to be present in. Evolution apparantly decided that the neanderthal genes were of little, no, or negative value in some areas.
Through DNA testing, scientists have found that all non Sub-Saharan Africans have 1% to 4% of Neanderthals in them, basically separating blacks from the rest.
Do you think that scientists will find out that Australoids' DNA is heavily mixed with some other pre-historic humans around the South Indian regions/islands? If so, which one?
How does that separate them? What difference does that actually create? Unless they are genetically different, as in not homo sapiens, they are no different.
How does that separate them? What difference does that actually create? Unless they are genetically different, as in not homo sapiens, they are no different.
Neanderthals are not homo sapiens and so are other sapiens.
Neanderthals are not homo sapiens and so are other sapiens.
Some people are 4% Neanderthals.
Humans and banana trees share about 55% of DNA. That does not mean every person is actually half banana.
The 4% of DNA is an evolutionary thing. Certainly humans and neanderthals certainly mated. They were similar enough species to be able to reproduce. And that's key. If we can reproduce, the differences between the two are negligible. So being part neanderthal means virtually nothing. Plus saying 4% is misleading. It doesn't mean what the average person will think it means.
What reality? The research regarding neanderthal genomes says that indigenous sub Saharan Africans don't have neanderthal genes, but an African American is not an indigenous sub Saharan African. In other words, pure Africans who never migrated out of Africa, carry no Neanderthal DNA, but African Americans likely do just by being 1/3 European. However, the neanderthal genes are only present in places where there was an evolutionary advantage. In some places the neanderthal genes posed no advantage (or not enough) and were bred out of existence.
I didn't say different races are different species. It is just simply that different races are different. Can you deny that?
Are you speaking of skin color when you say "races" or skin color. There is only one "race" of humans and we vary in skin color.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quaker15
I think virtually all African Americans are mostly sub Saharan Africans mixed with some whites and very little native Americans.
I am a black American. What you think is wrong. Most black Americans have at least 20-25% of European ancestry and less than 5% of Native American ancestry. I do a log of genealogical research and have found the majority of my family were "mullatoes" and most of my grandparents look like white people. I would not be surprised to find out that ethnically I am more than 40% European like Henry Louis Gates shown below. We are of similar skin color:
Are you speaking of skin color when you say "races" or skin color. There is only one "race" of humans and we vary in skin color.
I am a black American. What you think is wrong. Most black Americans have at least 20-25% of European ancestry and less than 5% of Native American ancestry. I do a log of genealogical research and have found the majority of my family were "mullatoes" and most of my grandparents look like white people. I would not be surprised to find out that ethnically I am more than 40% European like Henry Louis Gates shown below. We are of similar skin color:
I wrote: "I think virtually all African Americans are mostly sub Saharan Africans mixed with some whites and very little native Americans."
Which part of my statement is not true? Do you not understand the definition of the word "mostly?" It means "most" which means more than 50%. Or do you not understand the definition of the word "virtually?"
What reality? The research regarding neanderthal genomes says that indigenous sub Saharan Africans don't have neanderthal genes, but an African American is not an indigenous sub Saharan African. In other words, pure Africans who never migrated out of Africa, carry no Neanderthal DNA, but African Americans likely do just by being 1/3 European.
Yes, black Americans who are mixed with white did get a small dose of Neanderthal genes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.