We're all DNA, but is Race more DNA, or more Environmental when talking about Racial Evolution?

dna of the first european homo sapiens show they had dark skin...the change to light skin occurred relatively recently after the extinction of neanderthal and Denisovan

neanderthal, denisovan and homo are all sub-species, they have a common ancestry(most likely homo erectus)
if you're claiming that can have convergent evolution and become compatible sub-species that's impossible... all originated in africa and diverged after leaving...

 

Neither are humans. Did you not know that?

Here is a fact:

All of the evidence shows that all modern humans share a common ancestor than was an early human (yet still human) and lived in Africa.

 

According to most religions, the humans mated with the sky people.
These would be sub-species, or at least a monkey wrench in the DNA.

 

Figure 3 Distribution map for mtDNA lineages and haplogroups present in India and the Andaman Islands. The noncaste populations are considered individually, whereas the figures for castes are separated north/south along the borders of Goa, Karnataka, and Andhra Pradesh. The upper pie charts depict the percentage of M versus non-M haplotypes, whereas the lower ones indicate the percentage of M2 and M4 expressed as a proportion of all M haplotypes. The figures for ethnic populations from West Bengal and Tamil Nadu have been conflated in each case for the purposes of clarity, although they do conceal the fact that neither the Irula or Kota samples contained any M2. Despite this, the average of M2 in the total noncaste population ( ) exceeded 20%, compared to ∼10% for caste populationsn p 169 ( ). New data sets for additional Indian ethnic groups confirmn p 598 these distributions ( , [P. Majumder, personaln p 528 M2 p 23% communication]). This asymmetry is not reflected in the data for M4, which displays a more even distribution (Kivisild et al. 1999b).

The Amandan Islanders have dark skin because they are genetically close to Africans and their mtDNA haplogroup M was carried by one of the first groups of H. sapiens which left Africa. There was an early movement of humans through southern Asia and early human migrants were capable of reaching all the islands of southeast Asia (Endicott et al. 2003). After the initial migration out of Africa to southeast Asia, the Andaman Islanders have been isolated for a substantial period of time. Negrito populations in southeast Asia are descended from early human migrants out of Africa who resembled modern-day Africans.

 

can a shark mate with a dolphin? how about elephant with a horse?...yeah that's the same a sapiens and sky people...ludicrous...

 

Exactly.

 

no... their dark skin has nothing to do with africa, you see the name "Negrito" and jump to the conclusion it means "Negro! Africa"!
europeans originally had dark skin, everyone had dark skin because we all originated in Africa but that doesn't mean we have to look like modern Africans, mutations happen, skin can lighten and then go back to dark over thousands of years.
everyone outside of Africa are genetically closer to each other than Africans are to each other, Africans are the most genetically diverse peoples.
everyone outside of Africa can trace back to either haplogroup M or N, nothing unique there, the first people to leave africa were L3 from which M and N originated
the andaman islanders also have more recent post africa genetic links to Tibet, Japan and India...my snow white european butt is genetically as close to Africans as any Andaman islander.

 

DNA is awesome in what it's revealing...at first it was thought there was only us and Neaderthals but the thought was neanderthals were stupid apes we were incapable of breeding with, turns out they weren't stupid and yes we got very friendly with them...
then Denisovan DNA appeared out of remains thought at first to be neanderthal, and we got friendly with them too!
now DNA results from people alive today suggests there was a third and forth sub species in africa and south asia but no remains of either have been found to test as yet..

 

For purposes of discussion, African - Black - refers to sub sahara populations.
Just so we don't miscommunicate.

Europeans originally had brown, middle east skin.
You want White, look to the Yamnaya/Yamna invasion.


There is more and more evidence for multi centric evolution
with the winner being the one who could hybridize the best.
If you want to maintain the most primitive human came from Africa,
I would counter simians came from Asia.
How far back y'wanna take it?
And we really don't have as detailed a picture of Asian prehistoric peoples as we do of Black and Caucasian.


Yes to genetically most diverse but,
without the advantages of Neanderthal hybridization.
Brown North Africa, Middle East, Anatolia and first Euros did hybridize with Neanderthal, as did Asians.
Interestingly Asian Neanderthal genome represents different segments than that found in Caucasians.
Consider diversity is not only statistical but, quality of diversity too.
BTW Black Africa has the oldest Male Y Haplogroup. Older than H. sapien.
Don't you love statistics. A00. That is A, zero, zero.

And more consideration of Asians really messes up the
out of Africa uber alles, don't it.
If not, Study Up!

 

Denisovan were hybrid. Some Neanderthal. Some termed, Archaic.
We need the H. erectus genome.
BTW Tibetan high altitude tolerance is attributed to archaic genome.
I beieve what is termed archaic is H. erectus. Y'think.

 

What advantages are those?

 

?... was that question directed to me?

 

No....

 

Observe.
The evidence is before you.
Or NOT, because it may not be P.C.

For one thing, an active immune gene in both Asians & Caucasians.
There must have been some advantage to keeping it around.
Just because a gene is present doesn't mean it's active.
This one is. Most genes are inactive. Sequestered.

 

Not necessarily true, on these timescales. But I could see how it might have helped against certain diseases. Of course, not having it doesn't seem to have wiped out the rest of the humans, so its advantage seems tiny at best.

Furthermore, there are disadvantages as well as advantages to having neanderthal dna.

 

ahh, probably someone who I put on my ignore list...

 

You need to study your "survival of the fittest".
Disadvantages get washed out.
Why didn't Sickle Cell get Washed Out?
Because it confers Malaria resistance for one advantage!


Moi BSc Biology Magna Cum Laude, M.D.

 

Which takes time. And a slight disadvantage can remain indefinitely. Which you would know, if you had studied the material.

 

Purposeful editing strikes again.
Here is the whole, unedited quote.
Does the reply make sense?

The whole unedited reply:
You need to study your "survival of the fittest".
Disadvantages get washed out.
Why didn't Sickle Cell get Washed Out?
Because it confers Malaria resistance for one advantage!


Moi BSc Biology Magna Cum Laude, M.D.


Under the circumstances Please Do Not Quote Moi and Edit. Or Mark you have edited.
Need Highlights, try Bold Font a section of the quote. Gracias

Moi

 

My edit do not alter the meaning of the statement to which I replied, or the meaning of your post.. You complain merely as a lazy substitute for responding to my comments.

 

as long as the disadvantages don't kill the person before they can raise a family they're ok...for hunter gatherers 30-35yrs old was long enough to have children and raise them to an age where they could look after themselves fairly well in a family group

 

Right.

 

This debate over whether certain groups of people are more or less evolved is a complete waste of time and nothing more than a continuation of Scientific Racism. These arguments were refuted decades ago but continue to be repeated on the internet. Biological science does not support the idea that there are superior or inferior races within the human species. The debates over the origins of modern humans, the classification of species and sub-species, the degree of hybridization between anatomically modern humans and archaic humans will continue with more advances in genetics and genomics research as well as more archeological discoveries but nothing being discussed here is going to answer questions about how humans should treat each other which is a moral dilemma.

Here is a response from a real expert on the subject to the main points being discussed in this thread as well as a video presenting scientific evidence against these sort of arguments.

Now this.....

This cracked me up! The thread was not a complete waste because of this comment alone!

 

So the Black man says he doesn't feel deprived by having less Neanderthal DNA.
Less because if he is American he is no doubt a Black / Caucasian hybrid.
He got some Neanderthal from his White ancestors.
We can always find a scientist who says what we wish a scientist to say.

Looks like a product of affirmative action ​

Witness,
Peoples with Neanderthal DNA have a superior history of creating civilizations.
How about creating inventions.

And in modern times, "civil order".
What nation in Black Africa, other than Kenya, would you prefer to reside?

Oh No,
It's The Un P.C.​

Conclusion, the best of PeopleKind got Neanderthal in their genome.
Not to say those without Neanderthal DNA are not PeopleKind too nor deserving of lesser rights.
Similarly, Jews are the bestest of the best.
In Israel is evidence of Neanderthal and "modern people" living at the same time.
Do we really need to discuss Jews and intellectual superiority? Again.


Moi

​

 

As I expected you have no new arguments. Just childish name-calling and rehashes of the same old racist comments typically made in these debates which exposes the intellectually bankruptcy of your position.

Your response is completely devoid of substance and every comment has been addressed by me in previous discussions.

e.g.

Baseless personal attacks on the credibility of a respected scientist - Discussed Here.

Making racist claims about superior races having a monopoly on civilization building and important human inventions while denigrating African cultures. - Discussed here.

Referencing the long discredited Race & IQ argument with a fixation on Jewish Intelligence - discussed here.