Genetic distance increases when two populations are separate and they accumulate different mutations. It goes down when they intermix, form a new mixed population and natural selection works on the new combination just as it did on the previous two populations. Africa is more diverse because populations had less complete mixing or population replacements unlike in eurasia or the americas. This is in part because of the Sahara, the main component eurasian branch of humans is a branch off of a north of the sahara population, most of the genetic contribution of the population europe, asia, ameria and polynesia has had less time to mutate seperately than separated groups in Africa. Going through claims made:
"Africa is the most diverse continent on earth" to mean "A West African is closer genetically to a European than they are to other Africans" for instance.
Correct, sub saharans are more similar to sub saharans than europeans. Africa has the most diversity of all of continents.
they migrated more often between regions
Wrong, they spent a lot of time not migrating. Africa has a couple of very ancient and distinct genetic groupings, west africans, east africans and south africans with a lot of diversity within them. However, you don't see as much large scale intermixings or replacements suddenly appear like in europe or asia until the bantu migration. Instead population mixing happened at the peripheries of the two groupings territory. From DNA testing we can see a gradient between ancient east african foragers and south african foragers from ethiopia to SA distinct and unmixed at the poles but mixed in the middle in malawi and zanzibar island(Reich 222).
each group was isolated to their specific pocket of Africa for longer and that is how genetic variation develops over time
Correct, but he's too rslured to connect it back to what he said earlier about migration.
The San people are the first humans, myth.
Incorrect. The San are the oldest unmixed lineage as he says. He's too rslured to realized they're two different claims.
The real "first people" were black people, with dark skin, large noses etc. among other features which us Black people have and if we want to see what they may have looked like, we can look at the Hadzabe or Sandawe among the dozens of groups from East Africa.
This is a really complicated topic, but Hadza are decended from East African foragers, which split off from a shared ancestor of south african foragers whos decendants are the san and EA foragers. There is no telling what their shared ancestor looked like or if that shared ancestor is the first "real people". Not to mention thats a very contentious term, theres neanderthal(Reich 35) and denosivan dna(Reich 191) in various amounts amoungst different eurasian lineages and DNA evidence with 4 population tests that it was intermixing of eurasian migrants with indigenous peoples. By the standard definition of species the ability to carry fertile children the first "real person" would be much much older than the split between those two populations. Anatomically modern who is to say? But to say they're more similar to a lineage closer to a modern east african population discounts they could have features similar to populations mixed with even more ancient lineages like europeans, papuans, east asians and west africans(Reich 213) or less similar to their oldest unmixed decendant lineage the San is a very difficult to make claim.
The oldest splits still within the genome of modern humans are Neanderthals in Eurasians and Denosivans in East asians and Papuans (Reich 58-59) and a ghost population within West africans(Reich 213). There's a plausable alternative theory that the ancestors of modern day humans, denosivans and neanderthals originated in eurasia and our branch migrated back into africa and then came back to BBC the neanderkubs(Reich 69).
When they say out of africa. It implies depth of africa.
When in reality it was coast of mediterance as we know nowdays. Why nowdays? Becouse mediterance wasnt sea back then. It was big lake. And big portions of it were land. There was land bridge between sicily and africa.
In these now underwater regions is where first humans came to be. Then filling of mediterance happened. It took from few months to two years. Atlantic ocean just poured in one day. People had to escape sea. They spread around the region. Thats why creta and other islands of east mediterance have one of oldest archaeological evidencese of humans. They were highlands.
Here is where split happened. Some ended up in fretile crecent and thrived. Some ended in africa. Mates with monkeys and became bipocs.
Noahfacemar/she
By far the straggiest commenter on this site
Gibberish 1mo ago#7096601
spent 0 currency on pings
I mean they had to come outta somewhere, maybe in 50 years it'll be the out of Bosnia theory or something but East Africa is what we have the most evidence for.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
He's not right.
Genetic distance increases when two populations are separate and they accumulate different mutations. It goes down when they intermix, form a new mixed population and natural selection works on the new combination just as it did on the previous two populations. Africa is more diverse because populations had less complete mixing or population replacements unlike in eurasia or the americas. This is in part because of the Sahara, the main component eurasian branch of humans is a branch off of a north of the sahara population, most of the genetic contribution of the population europe, asia, ameria and polynesia has had less time to mutate seperately than separated groups in Africa. Going through claims made:
Correct, sub saharans are more similar to sub saharans than europeans. Africa has the most diversity of all of continents.
Wrong, they spent a lot of time not migrating. Africa has a couple of very ancient and distinct genetic groupings, west africans, east africans and south africans with a lot of diversity within them. However, you don't see as much large scale intermixings or replacements suddenly appear like in europe or asia until the bantu migration. Instead population mixing happened at the peripheries of the two groupings territory. From DNA testing we can see a gradient between ancient east african foragers and south african foragers from ethiopia to SA distinct and unmixed at the poles but mixed in the middle in malawi and zanzibar island(Reich 222).
Correct, but he's too rslured to connect it back to what he said earlier about migration.
Incorrect. The San are the oldest unmixed lineage as he says. He's too rslured to realized they're two different claims.
This is a really complicated topic, but Hadza are decended from East African foragers, which split off from a shared ancestor of south african foragers whos decendants are the san and EA foragers. There is no telling what their shared ancestor looked like or if that shared ancestor is the first "real people". Not to mention thats a very contentious term, theres neanderthal(Reich 35) and denosivan dna(Reich 191) in various amounts amoungst different eurasian lineages and DNA evidence with 4 population tests that it was intermixing of eurasian migrants with indigenous peoples. By the standard definition of species the ability to carry fertile children the first "real person" would be much much older than the split between those two populations. Anatomically modern who is to say? But to say they're more similar to a lineage closer to a modern east african population discounts they could have features similar to populations mixed with even more ancient lineages like europeans, papuans, east asians and west africans(Reich 213) or less similar to their oldest unmixed decendant lineage the San is a very difficult to make claim.
Who we are and how we got here: David Reich
Read it chuds
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
you take BBC up the poop chute, we get it
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Have I met you at ASHG?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
I never understood the pride they take in th being the "first" humans to have evolved.
"Yayyyy we are the least evolved of all humans, that's makes us NUMBER 1"
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I'd take pride in still being around since the beginning , almost completely unchanged when more enterprising, younger groups have bit the dust.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
there isn't any
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
I still don't understand "Out of Africa" theory ngl
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Its debatable.
The oldest splits still within the genome of modern humans are Neanderthals in Eurasians and Denosivans in East asians and Papuans (Reich 58-59) and a ghost population within West africans(Reich 213). There's a plausable alternative theory that the ancestors of modern day humans, denosivans and neanderthals originated in eurasia and our branch migrated back into africa and then came back to BBC the neanderkubs(Reich 69).
Who we are and how we got here: David Reich
Read it chuds
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Its kinda true. Kinda fake.
When they say out of africa. It implies depth of africa.
When in reality it was coast of mediterance as we know nowdays. Why nowdays? Becouse mediterance wasnt sea back then. It was big lake. And big portions of it were land. There was land bridge between sicily and africa.
In these now underwater regions is where first humans came to be. Then filling of mediterance happened. It took from few months to two years. Atlantic ocean just poured in one day. People had to escape sea. They spread around the region. Thats why creta and other islands of east mediterance have one of oldest archaeological evidencese of humans. They were highlands.
Here is where split happened. Some ended up in fretile crecent and thrived. Some ended in africa. Mates with monkeys and became bipocs.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Why?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
I mean they had to come outta somewhere, maybe in 50 years it'll be the out of Bosnia theory or something but East Africa is what we have the most evidence for.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand.
-- Thucydides
Snapshots:
https://old.reddit.com/r/Africa/comments/1fsszpb/dispelling_the_two_most_annoying_myths_about/:
undelete.pullpush.io
ghostarchive.org
archive.org
archive.ph (click to archive)
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Don't call them San, San is the Khoikhoi word for inhuman (paraphrasing), it's an insult and racist.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context