>>12175233>It is rather troubling when science does not have proper definitions agreed upon.Nature does not care about human need for definition and proper classification, deal with it.
By that rather fluffy definition we are back to the 1900's idea of vast racial differences where whites and Asians are of different species. Yet it is clear that interbreeding produces fertile offspring.
Does not contradict my argument. The temporal difference here is enormous and the ancestral Neanderthal genes you find today are from Neanderthal, meaning a different genotype acquired through speciation
>It is unclear to me how much there is of either mixtures. So how much Denisovans are there in Europeans? Hard to tell. Specifics for ethnic groups are still not available from what I can see. Fun to see how Neanderthals had their good name and reputation restored from a rather ugly starting point in an era where "subhuman" was a socially acceptable term.It goes from 1-4% and varies with ethnic groups, European and Asians have the highest score.
I don't understand this.
Brainlet. You are a mixture of Sapiens and Neanderthal (possibly denisova).
>Which? I only find the Toba catastrophe, and that was 75000 years ago when humanity had already covered the globe.I conceed your point and double down on it with some research, Toba is controversial, but I got that.
https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/17/1/2/975516 We still have a very interbred DNA. We still don't have all the answers, but interesting theories that make interesting reads. I oppose the paper I just gave with this.
One propose ancient bottlenecks, the other more recent ones.
https://www.genetics.org/content/205/2/787>It is strange how dogs vary so much more than humans, yet they were domesticated only 21000 years ago.It is so strange that human practise since millenia something we call selective breeding to make recessive traits appear.
It is also so strange that the government doesn't make you breed with family
