>Wars are pointless
>Why can't everyone get along?
>How is there no world peace?
What /his/ related things do people say that piss you off?
>>1411059
Anything about >current year memery, including doomsday preaching. Fuck you niggers, the world didn't start with you and it won't end with you.
>>1411059
>we are all one race -the human race
That line pisses me off every time.
>>1411470
It's technically true it's just meaningless.
It's about as helpful as telling the two sides of the Spanish Civil War; "You're both Spanish! Stop fighting!" You can't even keep peace within a nation, much less between hundreds.
>>1411478
Why would being human stop conflict?
>>1411478
The reason there's no such thing as "race" is because racists use it to say "white race" and retards see this as a good opportunity to deny its existence
If there was a proper definition for race and if there was actual unbiased research you would almost certainly be able to determine separate races
>>1411059
Kys edgy retard
>>1411448
Prove the world didn't start with me fag
>>1411503
There is unbiased research. It's just not popular to discuss or refer to in the United States due to the PC movement. It's why we're held back when it comes to genetic research compared to Asia. Chinese don't give a damn about objective genetic differences between humans.
I took a few years of anthro courses before switching majors, I'll share what I loosely remember but don't quote me.
Whites/Native Americans/non-negroid Asians moved out of the fertile crescent mostly around 30,000 years ago. Asians and Native Americans are probably the best example of un-tainted modern homo sapiens. Whites got a decent dose of neanderthal DNA when absorbing the population in Europe, which is likely what has given whites many of their features relative to africans and asians. This is plenty of reason to make a scientific distinction alone, without referring to other races.
Negroid Asians in southeast asia/australia migrated out of Africa around 90-120k years ago, and are genetically distinct on many observable levels. They absorbed the Denisovae populations in migration, and have a similar amount of DNA % as whites do with Neanderthalis.
Africa itself is more diverse than any of these populations are compared to each other. There are pockets of genetic isolation reaching back to 170-260k years, which at this point is bordering new species classification on the level of neanderthals and denisovae, with groups such as the Khoisans who's genetic distinctness compared to say an Han Chinese man is severe. These people are walking around with foot-long vaginal labias and asses that look like two bean bag chairs next to each other.
People will work out a way to be alright with it once they figure out how important genetic sciences are going to be over the next few hundred years.
>>1411059
Why do these things piss you off? Are you one of those "war is natural bruuuh" shitstains?
>>1411594
Very interesting
Does this research absolutely disprove the mutli regional theory and completely prove the out of Africa one?
Personally I don't completely believe either and there's possibly a 3rd possibility we haven't considered
Also 30k years is rather late for the Native Americans. Was it definitely not earlier than this?
Finally what are the genes mainly used to track population movements, is it just haplogroups or are there "practical" genes used, like for example the gene allowing digestion of lactose?
>>1411059
The fact that most people don't care about history is what pisses me off the most
>>1411594
Chinese have more Neanderthal ancestry than Europeans, native Americans have that and denisovae ancestry at times too.
Khoisan are not genetically a singular group and all African populations have been intermixed for thousands of years.
Please shut up.
>>1411616
Humans obviously originated from Africa, anyone trying to suggest otherwise has an agenda, all evidence screams Africa.
Native Americans probably came down around 30,000 years ago, there's not any concrete evidence of presence before that. The entire population of the americas were bottlenecked at around 70-300 individuals, which is interesting.
I think for the most part they observe mitochondrial DNA which has a near-steady mutation rate which can be used to approximate the distance from a common ancestor between two different people. Using this method, the most distinct people tend to be obscure groups in Africa, such as the pygmies or bushmen.
>>1411655
>Chinese have more Neanderthal ancestry than Europeans
But this is completely wrong. Whites have on average over twice as much as the average asian or native when it comes to overall genetic makeup. Just google it.
>native Americans have that and denisovae ancestry at times too
I never said they did not. Negroid asiatics have a lot more, in the same way whites have a lot more neanderthalis DNA.
>Khoisan are not genetically a singular group and all African populations have been intermixed for thousands of years.
I'm obviously talking about bushmen, given my descriptive example.
Quit being contrarian to good discussion with wrongness. There are probably some actual corrections you could make to what I said but these are not it.
>>1411692
http://www.ibtimes.com/neanderthal-dna-race-asians-have-closer-link-multiple-breeding-events-studies-say-1822230
Shut up
All Khoisan means are click speakers, they are genetically diverse and share long histories of intermixture
Just google it and actually do some basic research before spouting off things you know absolutely nothing about.
>>1411715
If your link is true, "new research" implies around 2015 when it came out, almost a decade after I was taking anthro courses in school, but I'm inclined to stick with my textbooks over a random internet clickbait article from a source I know nothing about.
Of course Khoisans are a genetically diverse group with interbreeding. There are groups within that diverse group who have been for the most part genetically distinct for over a hundred thousand years. Denying this is denying reality.
>>1411692
But if neanderthals originated simply from Europe why is it impossible that sapiens couldn't appear independent of migrations?
>>1411470
yeah? too bad your 20th century mentality is going to be extinct.
Join us on the 21st century or you will never fit in in today's world
>>1411738
If you actually bothered to read the article you'd know it's connected to a respected scientific journal and that typing Chinese Neanderthal DNA will show the studied that speaks of the East Asian Neanderthal percentages being higher than in Europe.
You are ignoring the reality that your notions of peoples is obsolete and your own stubbornness won't allow you to take a back seat and stop speaking with any sort of authority.
Shut up
>>1411740
The point is hominids originated in Africa a few million years ago, and branched out from there, including what became sapiens. "Homo sapiens" refers to everyone who's alive now, regardless of genetic distinction. Everyone who is alive now and who has ever lived descends from species that were exclusive to Africa.
>>1411621
good luck finding a job with history XD
>>1411756
But are the specific origins of homo sapiens actually from Africa or is it uncertain
>>1411755
how would it be higher when the neanderthals lived from spain to modern day georgia? occams razor easily disproves that theory
>>1411755
>AJHG
>respected scientific journal
Can't really blame AJHG, they couldn't operate if they didn't succumb to the new-wave PC mindset that pervades the academic world today. They are not a good source on information related to genetics for this reason, look to the east and Europe for that. Read up on the chinese human genetic diversity project before you turn to this SJW crap. It might even confirm what you're saying, I wouldn't know, but don't hand me this.
>>1411762
I'll say it one more time:
>"Homo sapiens" refers to everyone who's alive now, regardless of genetic distinction. Everyone who is alive now and who has ever lived descends from species that were exclusive to Africa.
If you want to define "homo sapiens" as something other than "everyone alive today", you could make an argument that they originated outside of Africa. This would make a large portion of Africans and negroid asians not homo-sapiens, but different species. The best argument would be that Homo Sapiens originated in the fertile crescent around 30-50k years ago and spread out in all directions from there.
>>1411763
>Recent analyses have found that a substantial amount of the Neandertal genome persists in the genomes of contemporary non-African individuals. East Asians have, on average, higher levels of Neandertal ancestry than do Europeans, which might be due to differences in the efficiency of purifying selection, an additional pulse of introgression into East Asians, or other unexplored scenarios. To better define the scope of plausible models of archaic admixture between Neandertals and anatomically modern humans, we analyzed patterns of introgressed sequence in whole-genome data of 379 Europeans and 286 East Asians. We found that inferences of demographic history restricted to neutrally evolving genomic regions allowed a simple one-pulse model to be robustly rejected, suggesting that differences in selection cannot explain the differences in Neandertal ancestry. We show that two additional demographic models, involving either a second pulse of Neandertal gene flow into the ancestors of East Asians or a dilution of Neandertal lineages in Europeans by admixture with an unknown ancestral population, are consistent with the data. Thus, the history of admixture between modern humans and Neandertals is most likely more complex than previously thought.
>It has been hypothesized that the greater proportion of Neandertal ancestry in East Asians than in Europeans is due to the fact that purifying selection is less effective at removing weakly deleterious Neandertal alleles from East Asian populations. Using simulations of a broad range of models of selection and demography, we have shown that this hypothesis cannot account for the higher proportion of Neandertal ancestry in East Asians than in Europeans. Instead, more complex demographic scenarios, most likely involving multiple pulses of Neandertal admixture, are required to explain the data.
>>1411770
>posting old data
Lol
>>1411776
You're wrong, it's okay. You can't blame sjws on all your failures anon.
>>1411715
>"Akey told the Daily Mail it’s also possible that European ancestors bred with another yet-to-be discovered species of ancient human that watered down their Neanderthal DNA."
This article is bogus, disregard it. Clickbait.
>>1411782
I don't understand this means of defining a species
Wouldn't everyone alive have a common ancestor, and everyone coming after this ancestor is homo sapiens
Then finding this common ancestor would define from where homo sapiens comes
>>1411801
The article uses the data green texted above.
You're still wrong.
>>1411797
If this is even an actual scientific study and not a weird clickbait article with a political agenda behind it, which is what it looks like in every way, it was cherrypicked to try and make someone relevant in acedamia. It happens all the time.
Genetic studies for years have reinforced that whites have significantly more neanderthal DNA than any other group. The Neanderthal genome project even fucking confirmed this. There is no superior source.
>>1411813
I can find an article that asserts aliens exist right now. I'm sticking with textbooks.
>>1411815
You are incorrect and you are not a geneticist.
Accept it.
>>1411797
>le old data
ah right, gravity doesn't exist either because it's based on old data
the smithsonian is respectable, your clickbait blog is not
>>1411823
Use data from established journals such as the American Journal of Human Genetics which was utilized by the website initially posted.
>>1411809
Everyone alive today has a common ancestor, and that common ancestor lived in Africa.
>>1411826
That data is from 2008-9 and before in terms of human genetic research it's old compared to now
Use the latest sources from legitimate journals.
>>1411838
nah, ill stick with the facts and what's reliable, you stick with your blogs
>>1411825
You're just contradicting me at this point like a child, I have no reason to take you seriously when all you've done is posted /x/-level clickbait and thrown around insults.
>>1411838
Generally when a source comes out that contradicts 50< years of data, it's because someone's trying to get relevant in a competitive field. Assuming there was even a study and it's not clickbait.
>>1411843
Ignoring evidence utilized by one of the most respected Journals of Human Genetics in the World just to tell yourself you are not wrong is so sad.
Like do you hear yourself? It's discredited for being discussed on ibtimes even when they blink to their academic journal lol enjoy that 6 year old research.
>>1411845
Among the world's most respected journals of human genetics is not /X/
Accepting you're incorrect is key to gaining greater knowledge of the World around you, new data changes our understanding everyday.
as long as ppl are greedy and their interest is to gain more and more there will be wars
always
