i assure you frosty, there is nothing up my ass. if we can move on, please.
i wanted to know your age because i don't want to be too harsh on a kid and you are under 18, so here we are.
i take no issue with your struggle to grasp the basics of the english language, but i think your grip would tighten if you stopped trying to sound so smart. some of your posts look like you entered a synonym for each word to the point where it's nonsensical.
also we're not constantly evolving like x men..
I want to refine that ;
"we're not constantly evolving like x-men"
We are however constantly adapting as well as selecting traits that will be passed down to future generations through sexual selection. Unfortunately, natural selection in the sense of how we applied it to our ancestors no longer exists. With the creation of capitalism, the new natural selection has become wealth, access to money, and ability to make and save money. There is no longer physical competition for resources in lower/middle class communities in first world countries for the most part.
All this does contribute to micro evolution, and we have seen increases in size (height and girth) in our species over the last century for multiple reasons. This could be micro evolution, but we won't know until much further down the line.
So we aren't evolving LIKE x-men, per se...
It's not as exciting and rapid, and it doesn't occur at different rates for different people. X-men was written to make racism look ugly, and point out that the idea of unevenly distributed evolution within our species is fictional and fantastic.
by ParanoidilutionGenetic variation between ethnic groups tends to be lower from one side of the globe to another (of geographic, indigenous ethnic groups) than denisovans and neanderthals (which mainstream science would now call a sub subspecies of H. sapien) were within their family groups. This is what core sample DNA testing had told us as we've been mapping the two sub-species' genome over the last decade.
Australoid, mongoloid, caucasoid, and negroid are antiquated (see outdated) terms used by wishy washy scientists of the early beginnings of anthropology when they still used phenotypic observation and external measurements (including phrenology lol) to distinguish "races" and justify uninformed bigotry. This movement started in the states and later on was a big part in justifying the genocide in nazi Germany.
The fact of the matter is, genetic variation between individuals of different ethnic groups, yes - even between the high rate of denisovan DNA in South East Asians and indigenous Australians/new Zealanders and the high rate of neanderthal in southern Italians, is usually LESS THAN 5 PERCENT. CORN IS MORE GENETICALLY DIVERSE THAN WE ARE (and sometimes it even seems smarter too) . The upper ranges of denisovan DNA observed in modern humans is in the general area of 10% and the upper ranges for neanderthal DNA observed in modern humans is 5%. Many indigenous African people have no DNA that would not be considered purely H. sapien sapien. And even with all this; denisovan and neanderthal DNA is so similar to the DNA of any other species sapien that we can only tell this through mRNA, and genetic variation between phenotypically very different individuals is genotypically below five percent across the board.
The reason for this lack of diversity is because we are still such a new sub species in the time frame of the earth. Yeah, our ancestors banged other hominid subspecies, yeah we saw ocean levels rise and form new land masses, but the reality is that we are a very young creature. Neanderthals were around much longer before they died out/bred out than we have been today. There hasn't been enough time and separation for genetic drift to really have much of an effect on us.
Good god, I hope at least one of you reads this.
Wow Para, this stuff is so fucking interesting. You blow mind!
Love,
The Sparrow
by ParanoidilutionYour such a suck up :p
You sure you're a sparrow and not a sap sucker? xD
Stop projecting your hippy tree fucking, sexual fetishes onto the forum, jungle lady. If you get off on straddling trees, then just say so. Don't worry, we're a liberal bunch around here :)
Ps, I was serious. I think its something to do with the word "homo" in Homo Sapiens that gets my attention lol
Dear Para and Slimey:
This reminds me of someone on another forum objecting to "race," and citing some study that found "no difference between races." What I learned from bone marrow outreach volunteers was that finding HLA compatibility boiled down to matching people by country, like Vietnamese with Vietnamese and Nigerians with Nigerians, to increase the chances of finding a match. So the genetics was that specific. And if a child was born biracial, there was next to zero chance of finding a match.
The best bet was searching immediate family, and then people of the same ethnicity by country as well as race.
The Europeans/Caucasians have 9 in 10 chances of finding a match in the database, while minorities have a 1 in 10 chance. This isn't just because of the numbers alone.
There is something "different" about the HLA in non-caucasians that requires a closer ethnic match, while any Europeans/Caucasians can be more easily matched to any other. Not so with Latino/African/Asian/Native Americans.
I used this to argue that race makes a difference genetically, right down to the country and regional population.