reply to post by Xtrozero
That post is actually very misinforming. There is a very clear geographic boundary with regards to the percentage of neanderthal DNA. Sub-Sahara
Africans have practically zero percent Neanderthal DNA. Eurasians have typically between 2 and 6%. No, not all people have around 3%, that's false.
Quite a matter of-fact, as I previously stated, modern Eurasians, if compared on a scatter plot to Neanderthal, Homo Sapiens, and Sub-Saharan
Africans, are closer to Neanderthal than the other two groups by statistical deviance. Sub-Saharan Africans are genetically close to Homo Sapiens but
still distinct, not to be confused with Homo-Sapiens-Sapens (Modern Man). That is to say, Eurasians are more or less a hybrid of Archaic Homo-Sapiens
and Neanderthal. The Neanderthal Genome studies done suggest that fair skin, eyes, hair, are more or less inherited from the Neanderthal
hybridization, as until the migrations and mixing started, it was an exclusively Neanderthal trait.
There is a new player, too. The recent discovery of a genetically distinct but close relative of Neanderthal named "Denisovan Man" in Siberia looks
like it may shed light on the ancestors of East Asians. As East Asians tend to fall close to Neanderthal like most Eurasians, but are also a
statistically significant distance from the Indo-European-Semite cluster. Their plot forms its own little cluster that doesn't overlap the others
Eurasians, even though it is close to it.
This information looks to help in genetically explaining the extreme physical differences between Sub-Saharan Africans, Eurasians, and East Asians.
Humans are the only species on earth besides dogs and horses that have such a huge range of phenotype expression and temperament that are still
considered one species. Birds of prey, especially those used in sport are a good example. Goshawks and Red Tailed Hawks are different species. If
put in the wild together, they don't mate with each other. However, they are genetically able to do so. People who hunt with hawks will often breed
the two together in an effort to combine desirable traits, both physical traits and temperament.
Are people different? YES, absolutely, both in genetic and physical expression as well as temperament. Should people be treated differently? NO, but
it doesn't mean differences shouldn't be recognized, understood, and worked with. Understanding that there is a difference is the first step in the
process of understanding. Merely presuming people are all the same despite the genetic evidence suggesting overwhelmingly otherwise in an attempt to
make people get along is the wrong way to make people get along. It means working together out of ignorance rather than working together out of
understanding. Understanding means people get along better, interact better, work better together, DESPITE the differences.
Most mammals have black skin. Only in extreme climates or through unnatural selection (domestication) do you see significantly otherwise. Ever seen
a bear or deer with mange? Black skin. Most primates have black skin. I think at the beginning, early Neanderthal probably had black skin, but
being relatively hairless evolved light skin over several hundred thousand years. Even polar bears have black skin. Lipizzaner horses, despite
having a pure white coat, have black skin.
The question shouldn't be how humans became dark skinned, but rather how humans became the current rainbow of skin colors they are today as black was
very obviously the base color.
edit on 8-9-2013 by Galvatron because: (no reason given)