Why is it hard for people to believe that the African variety of Homo sapiens is genetically closer to our ancestral...

Why is it hard for people to believe that the African variety of Homo sapiens is genetically closer to our ancestral species that were in Africa? It just makes sense that the group of sapiens that remains in the place we evolved doesn't have as much pressure to evolve new traits.

Other urls found in this thread:

openi.nlm.nih.gov/detailedresult.php?img=PMC2700803_1471-2148-9-128-1&req=4
dienekes.blogspot.ie/2012/08/human-chimp-divergence-date-pushed-back.html
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Mutations are introduced into the gene pool at a fairly constant rate. Not only that, but there are hundreds of isolated populations in africa that never interbred and basically have been diverging for thousands and thousands of years. So basically your statement is reductionist to the point of uselessness.

t. genetics grad student

But you're saying that mutations don't increase in significance when you take a species and introduce it to a new climate they didn't evolve in? Sure mutations occur equally in frequency for every group but surely the mutations that stick in the group that remains in the original climate aren't as significant

are you saying that Africa's climate remained unchanged after the ice age?

Yup. Evolution is inherently racist.

It surely didn't change as much as locations farther from the equator

I'm pretty sure the Sahara desert didn't exist during the ice age. that's a pretty radical change and close to the equator

>implying Africans aren't the purest kind of Homo sapiens sapiens, since everyone outside of Africa has been contaminated with Neandertal genes

And Africans north of the Sahara today look very different from the ones south of it. I was referring to Sub-Saharams in OP, I shouldve been more specific

Das raycis tho.

Discarded in favor of rose-colored version.

I was just making an example. i don't know much about environmental changes south of the Sahara, I was just showing that you made a false assumption that the environment wouldn't change close to the equator. also you are wrong that environmental pressures increase the frequency of mutations, it only affects the frequency of alleles in a population, producing radical changes. there is a huge amount of genetic diversity in Africa compared to the rest of the world. it would be hard to simplify which group is closer to the original pre-migration population of homo sapiens

why do you care to make people "believe" this? What is your agenda? To point out Sub-Saharans as genetically inferior so that you can feel justified in your prejudices? Or when you actually look into it like says, will you only demonize a specific ethnic group? How detailed are you willing to go in order to find a group of humans that you can feel comfortable labeling as sub-human?

Holy shit, what a worthless degree. Of course it's more nuanced than what OP states, but there ain't no denying.

Because DNA has shown that all humans are equally distantly related from the other great apes.

I mean, you might say that members of other races remind you more of other apes than members of your own race, but DNA evidence is incontrovertible.

The sub-Saharans who developed farming and metallurgy, the majority of humans on the continent, or the ones who didn't?

They have the genes too, human populations don't just move out into the frontier, they move back within it even more readily. Which is why OP is wrong.

btw africans are still obviously inferior and it's only an argument of how much of that is genes and how much is culture

>the group of sapiens that remains in the place we evolved doesn't have as much pressure to evolve new traits.
Right, of course, that's why the people who lived there today still look like apes rather than modern humans. Pic related, a human-gorilla hybrid.

>Because DNA has shown that all humans are equally distantly related from the other great apes.

Question

Isn't it possible that some people (homo sapiens) are genetically closer to our closest genetic ancestor than others?

More picture of these living fossils.

Well yes, plenty of people have Neanderthal ancestry.

...

openi.nlm.nih.gov/detailedresult.php?img=PMC2700803_1471-2148-9-128-1&req=4

Another australopithecine.

>It just makes sense that the group of sapiens that remains in the place we evolved doesn't have as much pressure to evolve new traits.

It just makes sense that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones, too, but they don't.

>Isn't it possible that some people (homo sapiens) are genetically closer to our closest genetic ancestor than others?

Not really. We're all the same number of years and generations from our closest common ancestor.

Your question is tautological.

The morphological diversity among Afar people is actually rather dizzying.

Which is most closely related to the orange, the brown or the yellow?

...

Funfacts: they style their hair with butter and sand to

Christ I need to sleep.

They don't use by-products of the petrochemical industry?

Ewwww

Neanderthals IIRC != closest genetic ancestor

I meant our monkey/Great Ape ancestor.

What a fucking retarded and irrelevant post. Kill yourself faggot

Your source does not show what you claim.

Too hard to tell. Common sense would say neither but your graphic is simply flawed.

>I meant our monkey/Great Ape ancestor.
The one that lived around 10 million years ago? I don't think we have any DNA samples to test that.

>Too hard to tell. Common sense would say neither but your graphic is simply flawed.

It's an extremely simplified version of the same concept, just imagine thousands of more branchings. A human in the Congo and a human in Korea are just as separated from a Chimp, which isn't even the same genus as us.

>A human in the Congo and a human in Korea are just as separated from a Chimp, which isn't even the same genus as us.
[citation needed]

What is this then

>Your source does not show what you claim.

Explain.

I suppose you'd also have to understand the link to get the full picture.

The image shows how closely related every human is to every chimp, our closest relatives. This is how all species work, it's not unique to hominids. If chimps and bonobos are 0.8 related, humans and chimps/bonobos are 6.0 related. You can read the link to find out what the 'unit of relatedness' is.

It's hopeless, phylogenetics are too counter-intuitive for the average person.

>What is this then
At first glance, it looks like a representation of the genetic distance between living primates.

>[citation needed]
Humans are genus Homo, Chimps and Bonobos are genus Pan. Orangutans, Gorillas, and Gibbons are also separate genuses.

>I meant our monkey/Great Ape ancestor.

Every great ape is equally closely related to that creature.

>A human in the Congo and a human in Korea are just as separated from a Chimp, which isn't even the same genus as us.

Not even close. The two most distantly related humans are closer than two random chimps from the same patch of rainforest; we can thank a population bottleneck some time around 70,000 years ago for that. This is also why we can survive blood transfusions and organ transplants.

Have my favourite depiction of the T Rex.

>Not even close.
That doesn't dispute what I said, read it again. Humans are extremely homogeneous, and all equally distant from our ape cousins.

Or maybe Nanotyrannus. Whatever.

I was asking for this
>A human in the Congo and a human in Korea are just as separated from a Chimp,

The fucking topic of our entire conversation. Not some fucking random thing even a retard would know is true.

Use your fucking brain faggot

Okay?

It shows how related modern humans are to other modern primates. I also see some connections to primates from the past.

I see, excuse me.

Reread my questionI'm pursuing the question with this user and his unsourced claims>This is also why we can survive blood transfusions and organ transplants.

Retard

...

>It shows how related modern humans are to other modern primates
That's roughly what I said, yes.

>I also see some connections to primates from the past.
I don't.

In any case, I don't see what this has to do with determining who is closest to some primate that lived 10 million years ago and left no analyzable DNA.

>Not some fucking random thing even a retard would know is true.
If you weren't a retarded faggot, you'd know the fact that we're separate genuses shows how distantly we're related and how retarded the idea that some humans are closer related to them or not is.

Are some humans more closely related to dogs than others?

Who is more closely related to your first cousin, you or your sibling?

>and all equally distant from our ape cousins.

[citation needed]

>I don't see what this has to do with determining who is closest to some primate that lived 10 million years ago and left no analyzable DNA.

I am asking for an answer to this questionOne idiot keeps claiming we are equally distant from our closest genetic ancestor.
Which is unsourced.

Are some humans more closely related to dogs than others?

Well, are some?

This question?

>Isn't it possible that some people (homo sapiens) are genetically closer to our closest genetic ancestor than others?

No, it isn't possible. It's conceivable, but DNA has proven it false.

>Retard

We're so closely related that you can put an organ from one human into another and they won't immediately die.

It also has to do with our absurd ability to resist damage and recover from injury, humans are top contenders among animals for toughness.

My point is that since some humans have genetic differences in DNA, then some MUST be closer in DNA relatability to our nearest genetic ancestor with the great apes.

Just as some must be closer to ants, or dogs, or e.coli.

It is probably a meaningless distinction, but no one has answered my question with a sourced answer.

>but DNA has proven it false.

How exactly did "DNA prove it false" when we don't have DNA from that primate 10 million years ago as he claims

>Are some humans more closely related to dogs than others?
>Well, are some?

Are you actually retarded?

>We're so closely related that you can put an organ from one human into another and they won't immediately die.
>It also has to do with our absurd ability to resist damage and recover from injury, humans are top contenders among animals for toughness.

Oh and Chimpanzees can't?

Did Chimpanzees have a genetic bottleneck 70,000 years ago leading to immense genetic homogenity?

Your logic that "bottleneck = genetic homogenity = organ donation working" is flawed to say the least.

>Just as some must be closer to ants, or dogs, or e.coli.

Again, who is more closely related to your first cousin, you or your sibling?

No.

Now will you actually answer the question.

>Again, who is more closely related to your first cousin, you or your sibling?
I am not sure. But one is conceivably closer. My brother and I don't share identical DNA.
Even "Identical" twins don't share identical DNA.

Therefore one must be closer.

>One idiot keeps claiming we are equally distant from our closest genetic ancestor.
Given that Y-chromosomal Adam lived some 200k years ago, mitochondrial Eve 100k years ago and there was a great population bottleneck maybe 60k years ago, I'm not sure what you would expect to find when you compare the relatively inbred modern humans to something that lived millions of years ago.
Like, maybe one ethnic group has 3000 mutations compared to great-grandpappy and another has 3002, that just doesn't seem very significant.

>pls give me some DNA evidence to back my support for hanging niggers

I am actually the least /pol/ person here.

I simply am searching for facts or a convincing argument.

There is nothing that says that "all humans are equally genetically distant from our closest genetic primate ancestor".

Therefore DNA CANNOT have proven me wrong.

>Like, maybe one ethnic group has 3000 mutations compared to great-grandpappy and another has 3002, that just doesn't seem very significant.

That's all I was asking for.

Thanks for finally actually answering my question.

So yes, some people are genetically closer to monkeys than others.

But it is extremely insignificant.

You don't want to imply that those people aren't heavily mixed with northern African sapiens do you? Because all of those traits are not native to nigs

I said maybe because I have no fucking clue, since I've already told you we have no DNA.

DNA has shown that all humans are equally distantly related from other great apes. It has not shown that some races are 98.5% similar, and others are 98.6% similar.

We don't need primate DNA from ten million years ago, only a comparison of living humans and living great apes.

>Oh and Chimpanzees can't?

I wouldn't have thought so. I don't think it's been tried. They don't have the B antigen in their blood, so they can't accept donations from B or AB donors.

>Did Chimpanzees have a genetic bottleneck 70,000 years ago leading to immense genetic homogenity?

No.

>Your logic that "bottleneck = genetic homogenity = organ donation working" is flawed to say the least.

Which part?

Bottleneck = genetic homogeneity?

Homogeneity = organ donation and blood transfusions working?


Here is a map of humans showing genetic similarity. If chimps were on this chart, they'd be at least ten times as divergent as any of the human populations.

>all of those traits are not native to nigs
Bushmen are about as native as Africans get and you can certainly see similar facial features in the Afar on the left:
But yes, obviously Rift Africans are heavily mixed with semitic people and other neighboring groups. I was making fun of OP's absurd claim that we should expect people who live around the place where humans evolved to look like ancestral humans.

Lindy?

This debate again?
There's no science that supports any of this, and if there was, you can bet your ass all the scientists want to prove they came up with the evidence first for al the money and prizes.

Alright. Well common sense would dictate that because all humans are genetically different, then some conceivably be closer to monkeys, dogs, and ants.

>DNA has shown that all humans are equally distantly related from other great apes. I
Citation fucking needed

>some humans are conceivably closer to ants
How would that even work exactly?

While the human is still closer to another human than an ant, that human is genetically closer to an ant than the other human is genetically close to said ant.
Like 1000 is closer to 1 than 1001, user wants to ignore that 1000 is closer to 1001 than 1.

>Citation fucking needed

I have no way to make you read links I give you.

>openi.nlm.nih.gov/detailedresult.php?img=PMC2700803_1471-2148-9-128-1&req=4

dienekes.blogspot.ie/2012/08/human-chimp-divergence-date-pushed-back.html

... When the difference is that small, the result would depend on which individual ant you pick as reference just as much as it depends on the two humans. Like, it's perfectly possible than one ant would give 1000 and 1001 and another ant 1001 and 1000. And of course when I say "ant" I mean "from the species and colony."

Where is that "the guard looks at you" picture when I need it?

There could be a situation where a human happens to have the same non-coding mutation as an ant. That human would be genetically closer to the ant, though they wouldn't be any closer in relatedness.

Thank you for finally answering/understanding my point.

Your citations simply do not prove this statement
>DNA has shown that all humans are equally distantly related from other great apes.
How the fuck can it? Did it look at all the DNA of every human and every great ape?

>Thank you for finally answering/understanding my point.

Which was?

There are no humans who are more closely related to ants or great apes than any other humans. There may be a case where a human and an ant or great ape randomly share a non-coding mutation, but that's as close to OP's claim as is possible, and it still doesn't mean they are more closely related.

Do you understand how relatedness works?

>Your citations simply do not prove this statement

The links I provided? They showed that of every human and every chimp tested, it was discovered that tested humans are all equally distantly related to all chimps, the most closely related of the great apes.

>How the fuck can it? Did it look at all the DNA of every human and every great ape?

You don't need to check every human and every great ape. You believe that there will be some missing link discovered at some point?

So according to this image, would a Dane be most closely related to a mongol than a Thai?

That's what it says.

Distance counts in only 1 direction, or also across branches?

Only along one direction, the branches are just for clarity.

It's essentially a measure of how many generations separate each group tested. On that scale, chimps are between ten and a hundred times (6 million years versus c600,000 - c60,000) more distant than any two populations shown.

This is a scientifically naive statement.

>Do you understand how relatedness works?

Tell me user. How can someone, say X, share more DNA with Y, but not be more related to Y than a hypothetical Z, who shares less DNA with Y than X does.

>You don't need to check every human and every great ape.

Uhh yes you do to make this claim
>DNA has shown that all humans are equally distantly related from other great apes.

So mutations happen at a constant rate regardless of species?

And those mutations must always go away from the starting DNA?

There are no human populations who share more DNA with chimps than any other human populations. It's assumed that this means 'of those tested'.

All human populations tested have shown that they are all equally distantly related to the great apes.

For me to prove my point to your standards, you expect me to produce a study of every human and every other great ape's DNA? I can't, no such study has been done.

For you to prove your point to your standards, you'd just have to show me the human population that is more closely related to chimps than any others. No such study has been done, or if it has, let's get the links.

>So mutations happen at a constant rate regardless of species?

More or less. It's influenced by the number of generations as well.

>And those mutations must always go away from the starting DNA?

Yes. They may randomly return to the starting DNA, but it's a result of the same random mutation process.

>There are no human populations who share more DNA with chimps than any other human populations.

Can you please fucking explain how this is possible in clear and precise words?

You keep stating the same claim and saying BUT MUH SOURCE when your source clearly doesn't state that anywhere.

Instead of running in the same circle a 20th time, please explain why you make this claim.

Finally, you didn't answer my question>All human populations tested have shown that they are all equally distantly related to the great apes.
Populations? You said ALL HUMANS.

>More or less. It's influenced by the number of generations as well.

Bullshit. Mutations happen at a far higher rate among humans living near high radiation sources.

>Yes. They may randomly return to the starting DNA, but it's a result of the same random mutation process.
These two statements are mutually exclusive.
If DNA always (you said YES) moves away from the original DNA in mutations, then how is it possible for it to return to the original DNA?

Again, you're asking me to provide a study that has tested all humans, rather than studies that test representative examples from all populations? No such study took place. No such study could take place today, it would be impossibly expensive. The studies we do have show that all humans tested are equally distantly related to all chimps tested.

If you want to prove your point, that there are some human populations who are more closely related to chimps than other human populations, you can provide the study that found this was the case. Did a study like this ever happen?

>Tell me user. How can someone, say X, share more DNA with Y, but not be more related to Y than a hypothetical Z, who shares less DNA with Y than X does.

You'll have to explain how this relates to humans.

What the hell is this autism?

It's like if someone asked "which humans have a heart more like a blue whale's", got told why the question is tremendously stupid, and then kept demanding proof that all human hearts are equally un-blue-whale-like because, since there is some variation in the shape and size of human hearts, clearly that means some people must have hearts that are more blue-whale-like.

>If DNA always (you said YES) moves away from the original DNA in mutations, then how is it possible for it to return to the original DNA?

It could randomly mutate in one way in one letter of the code, and then randomly mutate back again to the same letter. It's possible.

A mutation is never the code remaining the same, it is the term for the code changing.

>humans are equally distantly related from rocks
>HUGE REVELATION

The distance between two points will proportionally decrease in relation to a third point as the distance between the two and the third increase. They may even appear to be a single point at a vast enough distance.

This means nothing when attempting to measure the distance between two points.

What are nigs user?
What is the "true negro"

Sure, but when you ask "which of my feet is closer to the Equator" don't be surprised when people tell you they are equally distant from the Equator.

but I could have cut one of my feet off and dropped it very close to the equator and then crawled several thousand miles North

And then I'm sure they would feel silly for making assumptions.

>Why is it hard for people to believe that the Bonobo is genetically closer to their ancestral species that were in the African jungles? It just makes sense that the group of Pan that remains in the place they evolved doesn't have as much pressure to evolve new traits.

See how stupid it sounds now?

Black people are monkeys. This is scientific fact.

>The studies we do have show that all humans tested are equally distantly related to all chimps tested.

Once again
Citation needed. Your citation doesn't fucking state this.

>Did a study like this ever happen?
No. And neither did your's.

But common fucking sense indicates that if there is genetic diversity, then some people have closer genetic similarity to our closest primate ancestor than others.

>You'll have to explain how this relates to humans
It is clearly stated using clear examples.
1. Humans have different DNA than each other.
2. Therefore there is conceivably an X human with 1001 DNA strands similar to a primate and a Y human with 1000 DNA strands similar to a primate.
3. This means that human X is more genetically related to the primate than human Y. Just because both X and Y's ancestor at one point in history was the same, doesn't mean X's DNA today could not have become more similar to the primate's than Y's.

You summarized my point. Where is my logic flawed?

You're being idiotic by assuming I meant only one piece of the DNA chain. Well obviously it has to change to mutate.

This is just semantics.

Conceivably the DNA can mutate back to being the original strand. That's all that matters.

Thank you for simplifying my argument for his "equally distant" claim.

OP is a faggot

Read it in his voice

Were ancient Egyptians black?

>But common fucking sense indicates that if there is genetic diversity, then some people have closer genetic similarity to our closest primate ancestor than others.

but science doesn't. the only way you determine genetic relationships is divergence of characteristics using cladograms and those only work on the species level. in order to conclude that some humans were more chimpy than others, you'd have to have premises that forced that conclusion ahead of time. unless you have a breakthrough theory of analyzing evolutionary biology and genetics, i'd suggest you keep muh commun sense to yourself