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.
60,000 years isn't that long? If I make up a group of people in my head. And assume they have kids at 30 years old. That is a new generation every 30 years. 60,000/30=2,000. So we are to think not much in the form of evolution can happen in 2,000 generations? Seams to me a lot could happen. Or is my math all wrong here?
Different human races are partially the result of hybridization with other ancient human species like Neanderthals. And there's no set time frame for evolution. Some organisms exist for millions of years without changing at all, but others can change dramatically in a few thousand years. Look at the domesticated dog and all the variety of breeds that exist. Breeding of animals is essentially controlled evolution and human beings are a self domesticated species.
Yes, hybridization can result in new populations. However, that's not how Homo sapiens entirely diverged across geographical lines. All present human populations are genetically identical and descend from the same archaic parents. We share the same Y DNA and mtDNA. Neanderthals are on a completely different maternal line.
You should probably define Macro vs Micro Evolution. Change within a species happens all of the time, dogs and cats are a great example (as noted above). The potential for change already exists in the genetics, selective breeding and/or nature can allow the change to flourish or not.
Macro Evolution, the actual change from one species to another, eg: fish to frog, dinosaur to bird is a whole other subject. This is where you get people all over the map and I do not wish to take the OP's thread in that direction as it has been discussed numerous times in various fashions on this forum.
So whether it is 5000 or 100,000 years, I do believe that is more than enough time to deal with the variations among humans. :O)
60,000 years isn't that long? If I make up a group of people in my head. And assume they have kids at 30 years old. That is a new generation every 30 years. 60,000/30=2,000. So we are to think not much in the form of evolution can happen in 2,000 generations? Seams to me a lot could happen. Or is my math all wrong here?
Your math is right, but your estimate of a 30 year average generation length is way off. That may be about right in the 21st century, but for 99.9% of human history, it was more like 20 years, or less, on average.
Your math is right, but your estimate of a 30 year average generation length is way off. That may be about right in the 21st century, but for 99.9% of human history, it was more like 20 years, or less, on average.
I would be shocked if it was longer than 16 years for the first 50K years of human existence.
According to science, Homo Sapiens left Africa about 100,000 years ago. And, Europeans and Asians are separated only about 60,000 years ago.
Is 100,000 years really long enough for people to evolve so differently to get the result of Africans and whites? Is 60,000 years really long for people to be so different as the whites and Asians? Do you think other "humans" were inter-mixed with them to create these differences?
What do you mean, I was told that the earth was created in 6 days or 6,000 years. Pick one.
Yes, hybridization can result in new populations. However, that's not how Homo sapiens entirely diverged across geographical lines. All present human populations are genetically identical and descend from the same archaic parents. We share the same Y DNA and mtDNA. Neanderthals are on a completely different maternal line.
The most separated population of homo sapiens to my knowledge is the Australian Aborigines, who are descended from people who left Africa 70,000 years ago. Almost every other group is the product of intermixing. Example: one group of people reaches the island of Great Britain 20,000 years ago, another comes 5,000 years later and interbreeds, another comes 7,000 years later, etc.
I would be shocked if it was longer than 16 years for the first 50K years of human existence.
I would think more likely 12 or 13. Wild animals breed as young as they can, why not wild humans?
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.
