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.
Suppressed for what? Inconvenient to whom? Hate fact, how?
I think you're kinda flattering yourself. For one, this isn't the first time many people have heard this before. And two, does this change anything about our lives today?
So there are two groups of humans. Ok. Now what?
It destroys the fairy tale that we are all the same that a large part of left-wing politics is reliant upon. If we aren't the same, it means that biology might explain a variety of social issues that have previously been blamed on environment. And that means that social programs are probably pointless since a social program can't change genetics.
The most recent evidence is much stronger than what came before because new tech has allowed for much more thorough genetic analysis. And there is close agreement among the new studies. This team claims that out-of-Africa could not have occurred more than 75,000 years ago, but that there was an earlier group that left 125,000 years ago which accounts for 2% of Papuan DNA and left no trace in other populations.
But it's much more complicated than that. Neanderthals which all non-Africans have some ancestry from are really just another race or subspecies and they have been in Eurasia for over 300k years. Then there is the Denisovan. I know the genetic evidence supports the anatomically modern human out of Africa replacement theory, but it is not exactly a time clock or geography pinpoint.
But really it doesn't matter if the origin was inside or outside Africa or 60,000 or 120,000 or even 1.8 million years it's still a long divergence.
It destroys the fairy tale that we are all the same that a large part of left-wing politics is reliant upon. If we aren't the same, it means that biology might explain a variety of social issues that have previously been blamed on environment. And that means that social programs are probably pointless since a social program can't change genetics.
Aside from the political stuff environment (long term) does play a role in genetic development/evolution.
The reason why many folks believe Africans have the lowest IQs is that they never had to problem-solve new environments like the groups that left Africa did. In fact, the Capoids (lowest IQs) never even left eastern African where humans are thought to have originate.
Aside from the political stuff environment (long term) does play a role in genetic development/evolution.
Yes, but realistically social programs won't last long enough to impact human evolution. And if anything, social programs will devolve a population, since they encourage survival of the weakest.
But it's much more complicated than that. Neanderthals which all non-Africans have some ancestry from are really just another race or subspecies and they have been in Eurasia for over 300k years. Then there is the Denisovan. I know the genetic evidence supports the anatomically modern human out of Africa replacement theory, but it is not exactly a time clock or geography pinpoint.
But really it doesn't matter if the origin was inside or outside Africa or 60,000 or 120,000 or even 1.8 million years it's still a long divergence.
Maybe so, since the dividing line between species is often defined as the inability to mate and produce healthy offspring. Homo sapiens and Neanderthals apparently did have children together who survived and had children of their own.
Is there data supporting that or is that something you heard someone say?
Lol I wouldn't automatically believe and repeat that from a random Joe. Though I never made a career out of it, I did study human evolution for my degree. My biological anthropology and evolutionary biology professors explained this to us years ago, and when the study of the human genome was complete the information was confirmed. Our external appearances are determined by a tiny slither of genetic differences. Just 0.1%.
Yes, but realistically social programs won't last long enough to impact human evolution. And if anything, social programs will devolve a population, since they encourage survival of the weakest.
No argument there.
Only issue is it's not "nice" and hurts my feelings.
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.
