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.
True. I actually learned in school that the species divide lies in their ability to have fertile offspring. But that does not seem to be the consensus anymore. As for humans, I came to my own conclusion long ago by reading anthropology research that modern humans are likely a mix of different species that evolved independently. 23&me will even tell you how much neanderthal DNA you have.
It's interesting to me that many people, even scientists, will claim that the human species has low genetic diversity and this is proof of our sameness. What gets left out is that species classification is not primarily determined through genetics, since, until recently, genome sequencing was very costly and time consuming, so most organisms haven't been sequenced yet. There are actually many animal species that have less genetic distance between two species than the average human has to another human.
For lack of a reasonable explanation that fits the accepted paradigm of evolutionary processes, I lean toward and outside convention, and feel that there must be another answer, which might include some form of "seeding" of various sub-races whose extraterestrial origins were not the same.
And yet humans share 98% of the genome with the chimps.
And gorillas and chimps only share 97%.
The chimps are closer to humans than to gorillas.
Please, this does not mean chimps evolved to humans.
It's interesting to me that many people, even scientists, will claim that the human species has low genetic diversity and this is proof of our sameness. What gets left out is that species classification is not primarily determined through genetics, since, until recently, genome sequencing was very costly and time consuming, so most organisms haven't been sequenced yet. There are actually many animal species that have less genetic distance between two species than the average human has to another human.
What's ironic is that humans are divided on ethnic lines instead of genetic lines. Tribalism, not racism is the biggest threat to human cooperation.
What's ironic is that humans are divided on ethnic lines instead of genetic lines. Tribalism, not racism is the biggest threat to human cooperation.
Humans are naturally tribal. Somehow, maybe through pheromones, we are able to detect genetic similarity in other people and we prefer to associate with others more related to us.
This makes evolutionary sense, because in pre-modern times, meeting a stranger could be potentially life ending. We've developed the biological mechanisms to know who is kin and we bond with these people more easily.
There are many cultural differences between the races that will probably never change.
And within
Humans bond more with ethnic and religious affiliation than they do with genetic ties. Look at India, Ethiopia, and Nigeria. Those regions are racially homogeneous fr a global perspective but are rife in ethnic tension.
Humans bond more with ethnic and religious affiliation than they do with genetic ties. Look at India, Ethiopia, and Nigeria. Those regions are racially homogeneous fr a global perspective but are rife in ethnic tension.
People are more related to others within their own ethnic group than they are to others outside of it, including those who are racially similar. Of course it has to do with genetic ties.
India is the second most genetically diverse region outside of Africa. It's not racially homogeneous at all.
People are more related to others within their own ethnic group than they are to others outside of it, including those who are racially similar. Of course it has to do with genetic ties.
India is the second most genetically diverse region outside of Africa. It's not racially homogeneous at all.
Ethnicities aren't entirely defined by genetic fragmentation. In Southern Nigeria, there are hundreds of languages and ethnic groups. They aren't fragmented entirely genetically. Genetic clustering is more defined through geographies, not ethnicities. But yes, you're right in that kinship are more likely to have genetic ties. It's just not cut and dry as you're making it seem.
Languages and ethnicities reach equilibrium in a population much faster than genes do. Genes go in tandem to ethnicity.
Last edited by knowledgeiskey; 10-18-2015 at 11:19 AM..
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.
