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.
Interesting DNA finding involving African populations.
Quote:
A new study overturns that notion, revealing an unexpectedly large amount of Neanderthal ancestry in modern populations across Africa. It suggests much of that DNA came from Europeans migrating back into Africa over the past 20,000 years.
If I recall, it said something about there being a total of 3 billion base pairs in the human genome; a total of approximately 60+ million of those in European and Asian populations are from Neanderthal DNA; 17 million are in Africans.
What I found interesting is how humans (homo sapien sapiens) migrated out of Africa some 200-40k years ago, interbred with Neanderthals, only for some groups to return to Africa and intermix with groups there..which is where the admixture comes from. It'd be interesting to see exactly what African groups have the DNA and if their is a pattern based on region.
It was interesting that there has been a scientific bias that kept the researchers from seeing the evidence and if they saw it they actually discounted it, thinking it was only a modern contribution to the African dna samples. We occasionally see other examples of discounted scientific evidence due to bias (Clovis First might be an example).
Interesting stuff, but researchers have to compete for limited funding, so they tend to stress the more sensational interpretations.
These conclusions drawn from data on a very limited sample population don't take into consideration the more likely sources of common DNA. They tend to go with the "interbreeding theory."
It's much more likely that common DNA sequences exist due to a common ancestor, not the passing of DNA from one group to the next. Success breeds success. Once a more successful allele enters the gene pool, it is more likely to be selected over & over. To select a less successful allele would be "backward evolution." (Look up "genetic fitness peak"-- you can't jump from Mt Everest to K2 without climbing back down from Everest first-- not likely to be done.)
Then there's the phenomenon of convergent evolution-- a more successful allele in one population may be the result of single amino acid substitution (ie- "easy to do"). If it's so easy & successful in one population, it may also occur by chance in a closely related population.
Hominids back in the day lived in small clans and population numbers over all were very low. Contact between clans was only occasional, and was often bellicose to protect hunting grounds. (Compare isolation of prides & competition among lions today.)….They were able to survive by kidnapping members of a neighboring clan in order to increase diversity of their little gene pool...We saw that in interactions between American Indians & Europeans-- not unusual for the women-folk t be carried off-- makes a great plot for movies....This behavioral tendency (cf- geese flying unthinkingly south for the winter) improved chances for survival and may be the basis for slavery as civilization advanced (is that the right word?)….My point here is that interbreeding probably did occur but was also probably very rare, given the low population density of the times.
BTW- back when H. neand. thrived, glaciation was at a maximum, sea levels at a minimum and the Mediterranean basin was a lush, subtropical forest/savanna. That means there was a wide continuum of habitat from Africa to Europe. It was not a grueling, epic migration with covered wagons a la' Oregon Trail to get from one to the other. Probably most of the people, of either species, who drifted north out of Africa frequently went back to the old neighborhood to visit-- it was only a few miles. No single guy went very far in their lifetime...."Out of Africa" was more like gradual, modern urban sprawl, rather than a mass, distant migration all at once.
Last edited by guidoLaMoto; 02-01-2020 at 05:50 AM..
Interesting stuff, but researchers have to compete for limited funding, so they tend to stress the more sensational interpretations.
These conclusions drawn from data on a very limited sample population don't take into consideration the more likely sources of common DNA. They tend to go with the "interbreeding theory."
It's much more likely that common DNA sequences exist due to a common ancestor, not the passing of DNA from one group to the next. Success breeds success. Once a more successful allele enters the gene pool, it is more likely to be selected over & over. To select a less successful allele would be "backward evolution." (Look up "genetic fitness peak"-- you can't jump from Mt Everest to K2 without climbing back down from Everest first-- not likely to be done.)
Then there's the phenomenon of convergent evolution-- a more successful allele in one population may be the result of single amino acid substitution (ie- "easy to do"). If it's so easy & successful in one population, it may also occur by chance in a closely related population.
Hominids back in the day lived in small clans and population numbers over all were very low. Contact between clans was only occasional, and was often bellicose to protect hunting grounds. (Compare isolation of prides & competition among lions today.)….They were able to survive by kidnapping members of a neighboring clan in order to increase diversity of their little gene pool...We saw that in interactions between American Indians & Europeans-- not unusual for the women-folk t be carried off-- makes a great plot for movies....This behavioral tendency (cf- geese flying unthinkingly south for the winter) improved chances for survival and may be the basis for slavery as civilization advanced (is that the right word?)….My point here is that interbreeding probably did occur but was also probably very rare, given the low population density of the times.
BTW- back when H. neand. thrived, glaciation was at a maximum, sea levels at a minimum and the Mediterranean basin was a lush, subtropical forest/savanna. That means there was a wide continuum of habitat from Africa to Europe. It was not a grueling, epic migration with covered wagons a la' Oregon Trail to get from one to the other. Probably most of the people, of either species, who drifted north out of Africa frequently went back to the old neighborhood to visit-- it was only a few miles. No single guy went very far in their lifetime...."Out of Africa" was more like gradual, modern urban sprawl, rather than a mass, distant migration all at once.
These claims often are touted from the same group that seems to be obsessed with Hemmings & Jefferson.
Most of these "studies" are for the self-esteem of the descendants of massah & his coloured concubines.
The globalist plantation media & academia are really pushing their identity driven agenda.
Some of the dates are well before the beginnings of sapienization.
Heck erectus was no sapien but has been found out of Africa well before any Neandertals ever existed.
Again more about modern identity politics & the EurAfrica project.
On the tele.
So no link or proof to go to.
One show.
Is that the "white" color came from the Neanderthals.
Fact or fiction. Don't have a clue.
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.
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.
