Neanderthal theory and race
16 Feb 2012, 7:45 pm
rdos wrote:
OK, so I have updated the racial aspect of the Neanderthal theory: http://www.rdos.net/eng/race.htm
Feel free to post further objections in this thread. Even though I'm quite certain that my arguments about neurodiversity in Africa, it is not directly included in the description. I use Neanderthal ancestry instead of neurodiversity, but they are really one and the same if the Neanderthal theory is true. They have to be. At least the European type of neurodiversity.
Feel free to post further objections in this thread. Even though I'm quite certain that my arguments about neurodiversity in Africa, it is not directly included in the description. I use Neanderthal ancestry instead of neurodiversity, but they are really one and the same if the Neanderthal theory is true. They have to be. At least the European type of neurodiversity.
Thanks for taking our objections seriously. I will attempt to provide objective constructive criticism and evidence to support that constructive criticism.
Quote:
Neanderthals, race and psychiatric disease
Explaination
The race aspects of the Neanderthal theory, while a logical consequence of Neanderthals hybridization mostly in Europe and Asia, is regarded as "politically incorrect" by some people, and provoking on others. Still, if this part wasn't true, neither would the theory. Therefore, I've decided to describe separate from the rest.
Race and human diversity
There has been a lot of research on racial differences. Most of this research has become politically incorrect, especially racial differences in behavior and IQ.
Since natural selection has converged on the proportions of Neanderthal vs modern human gene frequencies, we can conclude that the retained Neanderthal ancestry, and modern human ancestry is just as successful when kept at the current proportions. If this was not true, the frequencies would not be in stasis. Thus, the retained Neanderthal ancestry is not superior to the retained modern human ancestry, or the reverse. The retained traits are diversity, not superior / inferior.
This argument can be applied to Aspies / neurodiversity vs neurotypical function as well. Aspies are not superior to neurotypicals, and neurotypicals are not superior to Aspies. Both of these types builds up human diversity, and when kept at suitable levels, provides increased fitness to whole populations.
Lastly, this argument can be applied to races. Individuals, on average, in some race can not be superior to any other race. This is because the only available diversity is the diversity introduced by Neanderthal. It is the same Neanderthal and modern human traits that are inherited, regardless of the race, and thus it follows that individuals in one race cannot be superior to individuals of some other race.
Explaination
The race aspects of the Neanderthal theory, while a logical consequence of Neanderthals hybridization mostly in Europe and Asia, is regarded as "politically incorrect" by some people, and provoking on others. Still, if this part wasn't true, neither would the theory. Therefore, I've decided to describe separate from the rest.
Race and human diversity
There has been a lot of research on racial differences. Most of this research has become politically incorrect, especially racial differences in behavior and IQ.
Since natural selection has converged on the proportions of Neanderthal vs modern human gene frequencies, we can conclude that the retained Neanderthal ancestry, and modern human ancestry is just as successful when kept at the current proportions. If this was not true, the frequencies would not be in stasis. Thus, the retained Neanderthal ancestry is not superior to the retained modern human ancestry, or the reverse. The retained traits are diversity, not superior / inferior.
This argument can be applied to Aspies / neurodiversity vs neurotypical function as well. Aspies are not superior to neurotypicals, and neurotypicals are not superior to Aspies. Both of these types builds up human diversity, and when kept at suitable levels, provides increased fitness to whole populations.
Lastly, this argument can be applied to races. Individuals, on average, in some race can not be superior to any other race. This is because the only available diversity is the diversity introduced by Neanderthal. It is the same Neanderthal and modern human traits that are inherited, regardless of the race, and thus it follows that individuals in one race cannot be superior to individuals of some other race.
One cannot assert that the only available diversity is the diversity introduced by the Neanderthal, because other archaic ancestors in Africa and outside of Africa have been evidenced to have mixed with modern homo sapiens, as well.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110907171533.htm
Quote:
IQ tests are primarily built in order to measure desirable traits in a culture. A couple of decades ago, these desirable traits were mostly related to Neanderthal splinter-skills, and were measured with non-verbal tests like Ravens Matrices. As social traits become more valued, IQ tests today usually measure verbal abilities, and thus are loaded on different Neanderthal traits. The reason why IQ tests are correlated to educational success, and lots of other measures has to do with how human diversity is distributed. Human diversity is not uniform, it is clustered on two distinct factors that originate from Neanderthal and modern humans. All Neanderthal traits are still correlated with each others to varying extents, the most correlated being related to social behavior and communication traits. When IQ tests measure Neanderthal splinter-skills, or some other Neanderthal trait complexes, they automatically become correlated with anything that has to do with human diversity. That's why the context of IQ tests could shift and they still seem to be valid.
This is actually the primary reason for how results of IQ tests differ between races. Races that contain lesser Neanderthal ancestry will have less of the Neanderthal splinter-skills that makes individuals score high on IQ tests. The lowering of the IQ gap between African Americans and European descent can quite likely be explained by how IQ tests have evolved from measuring mostly nonverbal Neanderthal traits to now mostly measuring verbal ability.
How then do we explain the different success of populations as a whole, with populations with Neanderthal heritage being more successful? This is related to why the Neanderthal traits entered the modern human population in the first place, and stayed as balanced selection. It is obvious that natural selection favored a certain level of Neanderthal ancestry because these traits confered an advantage to the population as a whole. It is called hybrid vigor.
This is actually the primary reason for how results of IQ tests differ between races. Races that contain lesser Neanderthal ancestry will have less of the Neanderthal splinter-skills that makes individuals score high on IQ tests. The lowering of the IQ gap between African Americans and European descent can quite likely be explained by how IQ tests have evolved from measuring mostly nonverbal Neanderthal traits to now mostly measuring verbal ability.
How then do we explain the different success of populations as a whole, with populations with Neanderthal heritage being more successful? This is related to why the Neanderthal traits entered the modern human population in the first place, and stayed as balanced selection. It is obvious that natural selection favored a certain level of Neanderthal ancestry because these traits confered an advantage to the population as a whole. It is called hybrid vigor.
While it is possible that hybrid vigor resulted from the integression between several archaic ancestors and humans sapiens in Asia, African, and Europe, there is only speculation of what that hybrid vigor might be at this point in time.
So while you can suggest that neurodiversity and splinter skills, were a result of neanderthal ancestory, you cannot assert it as fact, because it is not currently evidenced by science.
Furthermore, it is possible that splinter skills and neurodiversity was also a result of other archaic admixtures that have been evidenced in Asia and Sub-Saraharan Africa. So you can't exclude that potential either, by asserting that neurodiversity or splinter skills only comes from neanderthal ancestory.
Perhaps you could reword the paragraphs to indicate suggestions rather than assertions, and give reference to the potential contributions of other arcaic ancestors evidenced to have intermixed with modern man, some of that evidence in Sub-Saharan Africa coming as recently as 2011. Otherwise the information you provide is outdated.
Quote:
Life history or r/K selection
Among various animal species, researchers have studied r/K selection. r selection occurs in erratic environments, like on the savannah, where sudden drought is common. K selection occurs in predictable environments, like at higher latitudes. JP Rushton and several others have studied this in humans. There are several indications that Africans are the most r-selected population, while Asians are the most K-selected. People with Neanderthal ancestry show even more K-selection, and if treated as a separate group, would fall at one extreme, with Africans at the other extreme.
Among various animal species, researchers have studied r/K selection. r selection occurs in erratic environments, like on the savannah, where sudden drought is common. K selection occurs in predictable environments, like at higher latitudes. JP Rushton and several others have studied this in humans. There are several indications that Africans are the most r-selected population, while Asians are the most K-selected. People with Neanderthal ancestry show even more K-selection, and if treated as a separate group, would fall at one extreme, with Africans at the other extreme.
The R/K selection theory as studied and incoporated by Rushton has been dismissed by science since the 90's, because of research that has refuted the accuracy of the theory; it has been replaced by the Life History Theory, with elements of the R/K selection theory incorporated into the new theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_history_theory
Quote:
Here are the results:
Africans have lower average IQ and smaller average cranial volume. There are studies that confirm that autistic children both have larger cranial capacity and IQ. Most importantly, the group with IQ lower than 70, identified with classical autism, is much smaller than the Asperger group. Mean IQ south of Sahara is believed to be 70.
Africans have lower average IQ and smaller average cranial volume. There are studies that confirm that autistic children both have larger cranial capacity and IQ. Most importantly, the group with IQ lower than 70, identified with classical autism, is much smaller than the Asperger group. Mean IQ south of Sahara is believed to be 70.
The same complaints against measuring intelligence with traditional western cultural methods of IQ testing in indigenous Africans, has been made for Autistic children, as well
Government statistics in the US, based on traditional western measures of IQ, report an average of 41% of the statistically measured autistic children, at below 70 IQ. That is no small group.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html
Recent research finds abnormal brain growth specific to cases of regressive autism. The brains of individuals with early onset autism are not significantly different than control groups. And currently, in a large longitudinal study abnormal brain growth is only seen in 10 percent of cases of autism. Abnormal brain growth was measured in no females.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2011/11/28/bigger-brains-in-certain-types-of-autism-study-finds/
Quote:
Africans mature faster. There is lots of evidence that autistic people mature slower and longer than NTs.
The African Race on average, has been measured to reach puberty earlier than Caucasians, particularly in females, in studies.
Autism is a pervasive developmental disorder, with delays that have been measured in brain development, social interaction, and motor development, but there is no available scientific evidence of late puberty as a clinical feature of autism or Aspergers.
Quote:
Africans are more sexually active, and less faithful in relations. Many Asperger-people have disinterest in sex, and are extremely faithful.
Testosterone levels have been measured higher in the African Race than in caucasians so it stands to reason there could be an association there with sexual activity.
However, culture appears to play a bigger role in promiscuity. Studies show that promiscuity is higher in Western developed countries than the developing world.
Promiscuity has been measured at the highest levels in Finland, among Western Developed Countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promiscuity#cite_note-Westerners_.27are_more_promiscuous.27-4
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6101970.stm
The comparison specific to Africans has no merit, since Finnish people have neanderthal ancestry, and indigenous Africans in developing countries are reported, not to have any neanderthal ancestry.
Quote:
Africans have better motor performance. "Deficits" in motor performance is part of the Asperger diagnosis.
People of all races have better motor performance that people with disorders that have deficits in motor performance. The comparison of Aspergers to Africans has no merit or significance.
Quote:
Determination. Africans are more "impulsive". Special interest and extreme determination is part of the Asperger diagnosis.
Special Interests and perseverance are specific clinical features associated with Aspergers. Impulsivity, a different trait, is associated with ADHD, and Bi Polar disorders, both co-morbid conditions with Aspergers.
There is no valid scientific evidence that Indigenous Africans on average are any more impulsive than Caucasians on average; however there is valid scientific evidence that individuals with Aspergers with these co-morbids have significant clinical impairments associated with Impulsivity.
Therefore, there is no merit or significance in comparison of impulsivity and Aspergers, specific to Indigenous Africans.
Quote:
Creativity. Africans have no history of creative inventions. They hadn't even invented a written language nor many other basic inventions. There is no ancient civilizations south of Sahara like the one's in Egypt and Eurasia. Egypt most likely was founded by outsiders (Caucasians). Asperger is related with creativity.
Creativity is not only measured by inventions it is also measured in many other different ways. African indigenous cultures are rich in creativity through expressions of art, music, and dance.
Here is just one source of hundreds that study the rich creativity evidenced in indigenous African Cultures. I studied Anthropology in the early eighties, it was the salient feature of indigenous african cultures then, and still is now.
http://exploringafrica.matrix.msu.edu/teachers/curriculum/m13/notes.php
Civilizations from the SubSarahan past may not equal civilizations/cultures in all other areas of the world, but they met the adaptive needs of the humans that lived in the environments in those areas as needed.
http://history-world.org/africa.htm
The idea that caucasians lived in Ancient Egypt, was propogated in the 1800's and the early 1900's, and influenced by biblical accounts. It has long since been dismissed. It is now largely agreed that Dynastic Egyptians were indigenous to the Nile Area.
It is a politically incorrect idea in Egypt to suggest that ancient egyptians had negroid features; some maintain that their features were similiar to the egyptians that live their today. There is evidence that they have hidden or defaced artifacts that suggest otherwise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy
Quote:
Most, if not all, the differences between races would disappear if we were to exclude people with autistic traits in the studies.
Per evidence provided above there is no merit or significance of the comparison of any traits mentioned above, specific to Indigenous Africans.
Therefore, any measured difference between races has no significant association with the traits you list above associated with Autism/Aspergers.
Quote:
Rushton tries to explain these differences by selective pressure due to habitat. However, modern humans have only been subjected to this selective pressure for at most 30,000-50,000 years. Neanderthals and Asian Homo Erectus had been subjected to them at least 10 times longer. Therefore, we must either assume they were 10 times better adapted (no interbreeding), or the adaptations are due to interbreeding with them.
[Race, Evolution and Behavior : A Life History Perspective]
[Race, Evolution and Behavior : A Life History Perspective]
Most of the Racial differences Rushton proposed, are outdated, and have been solidly refuted with newer studies. Even if they were correct, there are no associations of significant merit between Autism/Aspergers and those proposed racial differences propogated by Rushton, as evidenced.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Philippe_Rushton[/quote]
Unless you can refute the resources provided with other evidence, I suggest you delete everything from the RK selection theory section to this point, and provide updated evidence to support the racial aspect of your theory, if you can provide it.
If you are not able to do that, I suggest you delete the entire racial aspect section, for now, from the website, until you can provide convincing evidence, for this aspect of your theory.
Otherwise, the overall credibility of the theory and the Aspie Quiz, may be tarnished, by those who resent the Eugenics implications, particularly if they can be easily refuted.
17 Feb 2012, 3:12 am
rdos wrote:
nemorosa wrote:
Had it occurred to you how black people may feel about being told most of their genetic diversity is nonsense with no function? Do you think through the implications of what you say for even just a few seconds and engage the internal censor?
It is. Most genetic diversity is nonsense mutations. That is why it can be used to research population history. You cannot use mutations with a function to research population history. Why would I lie about that?
Nonsense mutations have been implicated in Autism And Epilepsy:
http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/04/12/hmg.ddr122.abstract
Quote:
Several genes predisposing to autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) with or without epilepsy have been identified, many of which are implicated in synaptic function. Here we report a Q555X mutation in synapsin 1 (SYN1), an X-linked gene encoding for a neuron-specific phosphoprotein implicated in the regulation of neurotransmitter release and synaptogenesis. This nonsense mutation was found in all affected individuals from a large French-Canadian family segregating epilepsy and ASDs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation#Harmful_mutations
Non-sense mutations are only one of many different types of mutations common to homo- sapiens. There is no evidence that this type of mutation occurs in indigenous Africans anymore than it does in any other population in the world. There are many disorders and diseases associated with this type of mutation.
It is one of three types of Point Mutations.
Quote:
Point mutations that occur within the protein coding region of a gene may be classified into three kinds, depending upon what the erroneous codon codes for:
Silent mutations: which code for the same amino acid.
Missense mutations: which code for a different amino acid.
Nonsense mutations: which code for a stop and can truncate the protein
.
Silent mutations: which code for the same amino acid.
Missense mutations: which code for a different amino acid.
Nonsense mutations: which code for a stop and can truncate the protein
Maybe you mean non-coding DNA; are you referring to the broad category of non-coding DNA, or what is sometimes referred to as "Junk DNA"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noncoding_DNA
It constitutes about 98% of the human genome, in all populations of homo sapiens. Much of it isn't understood; functions have been discovered and additional functions are suspected, yet to be discovered.
In 2010, it was thought that the Neanderthal DNA variants were non-functional in modern humans beings. Last year, speculation was raised that some of the genes may serve a purpose in modern human beings, in association with the immune system, and bi-polar disorder, but they are hypotheses at this time, yet to be tested and validated.
It is also suspected that archaic Denisovan DNA may be related to functional variants of that DNA associated with the immune system of modern human beings.
The finding for the Archaic DNA in Indigenous Africans is fairly new, and it is not known what function, if any it serves.
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110809/full/476136a.html
There will likely be additional hypotheses generated, associated with Archaic DNA, in human populations, across the world.
17 Feb 2012, 3:46 am
aghogday wrote:
One cannot assert that the only available diversity is the diversity introduced by the Neanderthal, because other archaic ancestors in Africa and outside of Africa have been evidenced to have mixed with modern homo sapiens, as well.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110907171533.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110907171533.htm
OK, I'll add Denisovan and the possible evidence in Africa, and elaborate on why the case is still the same.
aghogday wrote:
So while you can suggest that neurodiversity and splinter skills, were a result of neanderthal ancestory, you cannot assert it as fact, because it is not currently evidenced by science.
I'm not writing a supportive paper that is supposed to prove the Neanderthal theory, but rather describe what we would expect if it is true. As such, the claims does not need to be proved. They are up to further evaluation in new studies.
aghogday wrote:
Furthermore, it is possible that splinter skills and neurodiversity was also a result of other archaic admixtures that have been evidenced in Asia and Sub-Saraharan Africa. So you can't exclude that potential either, by asserting that neurodiversity or splinter skills only comes from neanderthal ancestory.
I'll add why this would not be so. Modern humans evolved in Africa and Southern Asia, and thus is the available traits in those regions. There is no reason to expect isolated, archaic populations much different from modern humans. Even if such existed, they would not have been subjected to the climatic stress factors of Eurasia, and thus would not evolve Eurasian adaptations to cold.
aghogday wrote:
Perhaps you could reword the paragraphs to indicate suggestions rather than assertions, and give reference to the potential contributions of other arcaic ancestors evidenced to have intermixed with modern man, some of that evidence in Sub-Saharan Africa coming as recently as 2011. Otherwise the information you provide is outdated.
Possibly more as what we expect rather than suggestions. Idle speculation that does not explain some data OTOH should not be in the theory.
aghogday wrote:
Unless you can refute the resources provided with other evidence, I suggest you delete everything from the RK selection theory section to this point, and provide updated evidence to support the racial aspect of your theory, if you can provide it.
OK, I'll delete it. Even though I think maturation and motor abilities does have a merit, it is obvious that sexual activity has not (compulsive sexual behavior is related to neurodiversity) and neither has impulsivity.
Edit: New wording:
Quote:
New research indicates that Eurasians have 1-4% of Neanderthal and Denisovan ancestry. There is also some evidence of introgression in Africa, possibly introgressing 5% ancient genes into modern Africans. Yet, we only expect the archaic Eurasian diversity introgressed from Neanderthal and other archaic groups in Eurasia like Denisovan to make a difference. Modern humans evolved in Africa or south Asia, from archaic ancestors, so we expect modern humans to already have a majority of the diversity in Africa and south Asia. The contribution from Neanderthal and Denisovan must be similar given the very ancient division of Africa from Eurasia of almost 2 million years according to Aspie Quiz data.
The argument about superiority can be applied to races. Individuals, on average, in some race can not be superior to any other race. This is because the only available diversity is the diversity introduced from archaic Eurasians like Neanderthal and Denisovan, and modern humans, and this diversity is identical regardless of race, and thus it follows that individuals in one race cannot be superior to individuals of some other race.
The argument about superiority can be applied to races. Individuals, on average, in some race can not be superior to any other race. This is because the only available diversity is the diversity introduced from archaic Eurasians like Neanderthal and Denisovan, and modern humans, and this diversity is identical regardless of race, and thus it follows that individuals in one race cannot be superior to individuals of some other race.
17 Feb 2012, 4:34 am
aghogday wrote:
Non-sense mutations are only one of many different types of mutations common to homo- sapiens. There is no evidence that this type of mutation occurs in indigenous Africans anymore than it does in any other population in the world. There are many disorders and diseases associated with this type of mutation.
True. I should have written that most mutations are non-sense mutations, and all populations have them. However, the argument that introgression is only functional diversity, and does not contribute significantly to genetic diversity is still true. Africans are only more diverse (genetically) because they have no history of bottlenecks, like the Toba event and the last glacial maximum. So it is still the case that Africans can have more genetic diversity but lesser functional diversity because they never introgressed Neanderthal functional variation. This is also evident in physical traits. Europeans have several hair colors and eye colors, while Africans have only one. This is in spite of Europeans having the lowest genetic diversity.
aghogday wrote:
Quote:
Silent mutations: which code for the same amino acid.
Missense mutations: which code for a different amino acid.
Nonsense mutations: which code for a stop and can truncate the protein
.Missense mutations: which code for a different amino acid.
Nonsense mutations: which code for a stop and can truncate the protein
Maybe you mean non-coding DNA; are you referring to the broad category of non-coding DNA, or what is sometimes referred to as "Junk DNA"?
I don't know, but most mutations are problably silent.
17 Feb 2012, 5:11 am
rdos wrote:
aghogday wrote:
Non-sense mutations are only one of many different types of mutations common to homo- sapiens. There is no evidence that this type of mutation occurs in indigenous Africans anymore than it does in any other population in the world. There are many disorders and diseases associated with this type of mutation.
True. I should have written that most mutations are non-sense mutations, and all populations have them. However, the argument that introgression is only functional diversity, and does not contribute significantly to genetic diversity is still true. Africans are only more diverse (genetically) because they have no history of bottlenecks, like the Toba event and the last glacial maximum. So it is still the case that Africans can have more genetic diversity but lesser functional diversity because they never introgressed Neanderthal functional variation. This is also evident in physical traits. Europeans have several hair colors and eye colors, while Africans have only one. This is in spite of Europeans having the lowest genetic diversity.
aghogday wrote:
Quote:
Silent mutations: which code for the same amino acid.
Missense mutations: which code for a different amino acid.
Nonsense mutations: which code for a stop and can truncate the protein
.Missense mutations: which code for a different amino acid.
Nonsense mutations: which code for a stop and can truncate the protein
Maybe you mean non-coding DNA; are you referring to the broad category of non-coding DNA, or what is sometimes referred to as "Junk DNA"?
I don't know, but most mutations are problably silent.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11126724
TheSunAlsoRises
17 Feb 2012, 5:26 am
TheSunAlsoRises wrote:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11126724
Seems totally invalid. Skin color diversity is not functional. Not within the same region at least. Additionally, we expect this based on back migration into Africa.
And why use skin color when we could use hair color, eye color or curly / straight hair, that seems to be real diversity?
17 Feb 2012, 5:42 am
Quote:
Quote:
Seems totally invalid. Skin color diversity is not functional. Not within the same region at least. Additionally, we expect this based on back migration into Africa.
And why use skin color when we could use hair color, eye color or curly / straight hair, that seems to be real diversity?
And why use skin color when we could use hair color, eye color or curly / straight hair, that seems to be real diversity?
How are you defining functional diversity ? And 'real diversity' for that matter ? I'm responding par your post.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_diversity
I'm looking at skin color in a purely scientific context as you were looking at I.Q.
I found this part relevant.
"Though affected by natural selection, skin color variation shows the same pattern of higher African diversity as found with other traits."
TheSunAlsoRises
Mummy_of_Peanut
Veteran
Joined: 20 Feb 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,564
Location: Bonnie Scotland
17 Feb 2012, 6:17 am
rdos wrote:
TheSunAlsoRises wrote:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11126724
Seems totally invalid. Skin color diversity is not functional. Not within the same region at least. Additionally, we expect this based on back migration into Africa.
And why use skin color when we could use hair color, eye color or curly / straight hair, that seems to be real diversity?
Skin colour diversity is highly functional, in many ways, not least for vitamin D production purposes.
_________________
"We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all we need to make us really happy is something to be enthusiatic about." Charles Kingsley
17 Feb 2012, 6:22 am
Umm, I didn't read all the responses, but frankly, it just sounds silly to me. The whole Neanderthal Autism link is most likely a hoax thought up either by some stupid troll or by some narcissistic psychiatrist. I don't want to research, I frankly just don't care.
But just don't take things on the internet so seriously for your own good. There is a lot of BS out there.
Mummy_of_Peanut
Veteran
Joined: 20 Feb 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,564
Location: Bonnie Scotland
17 Feb 2012, 6:29 am
rdos wrote:
True. I should have written that most mutations are non-sense mutations, and all populations have them. However, the argument that introgression is only functional diversity, and does not contribute significantly to genetic diversity is still true. Africans are only more diverse (genetically) because they have no history of bottlenecks, like the Toba event and the last glacial maximum. So it is still the case that Africans can have more genetic diversity but lesser functional diversity because they never introgressed Neanderthal functional variation. This is also evident in physical traits. Europeans have several hair colors and eye colors, while Africans have only one. This is in spite of Europeans having the lowest genetic diversity.
Europeans may have greater variation in eye and hair colour, but, on the scale of things, we are only talking about a few genes here. The difference between the facial features and skull structure of west and east Africans is unmistakable. Chances are they provide some sort of function (certain features being of advantage in drier climates, etc). And who knows about the variations that we can't actually see, like in the digestive and immune systems. I'd hazard a guess that more genes are involved in those differences than there are in the colour variations in Europeans.
_________________
"We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all we need to make us really happy is something to be enthusiatic about." Charles Kingsley
17 Feb 2012, 6:40 am
It has already been proved that archaic immune system genes are a majority contribution in Eurasians. IOW, immune system genes already adapted to Eurasian diseases had a major selective adavantage in modern humans. And as these did not introgress into Africa, I find it quite unlikely that Africans has larger functional immune system diversity. Just looking at how many variants there is will not solve the issue. We want to know how many functional variants there are.
However, I'm not interested in biology or immune system genes, but behavioral diversity, which must have been a major adavantage as well since most of human evolution has to do with the brain, not with physical traits.
17 Feb 2012, 7:13 am
About the IQ stuff, I'm not sure what the OP is driving at, but I took an IQ test once with a trained psychologist, and a lot of the questions were just plain dumb. I did pretty well on the test because I am a well-educated American, but an uneducated person who is much more brilliant than I am would do worse simply because they don't know American customs or American vocabulary. A lot of test was straight vocabulary. Some of it was putting pictures in sequence which was equally dumb. I mean, I can create my own damn sequence, right!? Lol.
IQ tests are BS.
17 Feb 2012, 7:31 am
things like this are far more complicated than the OP makes out. no one person can hope to really understand what is really going on. If someone claims this with a theory then it is clearly their own opinion that they have skewed and picked facts to believe.
start studying science properly and anyone would realise that it is far too ridiculously complex to state things like this as facts.
