If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   Was inbreeding common among early humans? Well, remember, Adam and Eve did beget all of humanity   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 55
    More: Interesting, early humans, China's Nihewan Basin, craniums, Paleolithic, Pleistocene, Homo erectus, paleoanthropology, archaeological evidence  
•       •       •

2266 clicks; posted to Geek » on 20 Mar 2013 at 8:04 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



55 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-20 08:08:24 AM
in order for that sentence to make sense, you have to know what the word beget means
and since you don't your just spouting gibberish
 
2013-03-20 08:11:38 AM

Jon iz teh kewl: in order for that sentence to make sense, you have to know what the word beget means
and since you don't your just spouting gibberish


I think it's supposed to mean that their begettin' begat all humanity.

Begettity.
 
2013-03-20 08:12:21 AM

Jon iz teh kewl: in order for that sentence to make sense, you have to know what the word beget means
and since you don't your just spouting gibberish


in order for your post to make sense, you have to know the difference between your and you're
and since you don't your just spouting gibberish
 
2013-03-20 08:12:36 AM

sendtodave: Jon iz teh kewl: in order for that sentence to make sense, you have to know what the word beget means
and since you don't your just spouting gibberish

I think it's supposed to mean that their begettin' begat all humanity.

Begettity.


You best be gettin up outta here with all your fancy words!
 
2013-03-20 08:15:30 AM
Wait...  Were Adam and Eve in Alabama?
 
2013-03-20 08:24:23 AM
Adam and Eve "knowing" their children and their children "knowing" one another is still less morally polluted than evolution, which requires the first orgasm to engage in self-abuse to replicate itself not to mention tons of bestiality. If God intended for us to have sex with animals, he would have made us animals.
 
2013-03-20 08:27:51 AM
Given how little genetic diversity there is among humans? Well it means at some point not all that long ago, in evolutionary terms anyways, there weren't very many people around. And they were all near each other and intermingling so you pretty much ended up with what amounts to inbreeding. As for how little genetic diversity there is among humans, there's significantly less genetic diversity among humans than there is chimpanzees.
 
2013-03-20 08:28:44 AM

WhyteRaven74: Given how little genetic diversity there is among humans? Well it means at some point not all that long ago, in evolutionary terms anyways, there weren't very many people around. And they were all near each other and intermingling so you pretty much ended up with what amounts to inbreeding. As for how little genetic diversity there is among humans, there's significantly less genetic diversity among humans than there is chimpanzees.


So... we should be farking chimps?
 
2013-03-20 08:32:09 AM

FirstNationalBastard: So... we should be farking chimps?


*tilts head towards politics tab* you sure it hasn't happened already?
 
2013-03-20 08:32:34 AM
What do you mean  early humans?  Inbreeding is all the rage it seems in Roanoke, VA
 
2013-03-20 08:39:28 AM

Feepit: Adam and Eve "knowing" their children and their children "knowing" one another is still less morally polluted than evolution, which requires the first orgasm to engage in self-abuse to replicate itself not to mention tons of bestiality. If God intended for us to have sex with animals, he would have made us animals.


awesome LOL, would LOL again!
 
2013-03-20 08:39:38 AM

WhyteRaven74: Given how little genetic diversity there is among humans? Well it means at some point not all that long ago, in evolutionary terms anyways, there weren't very many people around. And they were all near each other and intermingling so you pretty much ended up with what amounts to inbreeding. As for how little genetic diversity there is among humans, there's significantly less genetic diversity among humans than there is chimpanzees.


We also have fewer genes than a carrot.  There's a lot of genetics and evolutionary biology that we still have left to learn.
 
2013-03-20 08:41:11 AM

StrangeQ: WhyteRaven74: Given how little genetic diversity there is among humans? Well it means at some point not all that long ago, in evolutionary terms anyways, there weren't very many people around. And they were all near each other and intermingling so you pretty much ended up with what amounts to inbreeding. As for how little genetic diversity there is among humans, there's significantly less genetic diversity among humans than there is chimpanzees.

We also have fewer genes than a carrot.  There's a lot of genetics and evolutionary biology that we still have left to learn.


I'm not farking a carrot. Though they do fit perfectly in my anus.
 
2013-03-20 08:42:12 AM
Was this skull homo sapien or Denisovan? "Human" is used pretty broadly these days...
 
2013-03-20 08:42:44 AM

StrangeQ: WhyteRaven74: Given how little genetic diversity there is among humans? Well it means at some point not all that long ago, in evolutionary terms anyways, there weren't very many people around. And they were all near each other and intermingling so you pretty much ended up with what amounts to inbreeding. As for how little genetic diversity there is among humans, there's significantly less genetic diversity among humans than there is chimpanzees.

We also have fewer genes than a carrot.


Plants usually have more genes than we do. They don't control their temperature, so they need to encode for different enzymes that work in all kinds of temperature ranges.
 
2013-03-20 08:49:18 AM

Quantum Apostrophe: StrangeQ: WhyteRaven74: Given how little genetic diversity there is among humans? Well it means at some point not all that long ago, in evolutionary terms anyways, there weren't very many people around. And they were all near each other and intermingling so you pretty much ended up with what amounts to inbreeding. As for how little genetic diversity there is among humans, there's significantly less genetic diversity among humans than there is chimpanzees.

We also have fewer genes than a carrot.

Plants usually have more genes than we do. They don't control their temperature, so they need to encode for different enzymes that work in all kinds of temperature ranges.


Currently 0% of plants in the United States graduate high school. They are doing worse than Mexicans.
 
2013-03-20 08:51:21 AM
It was common just a few generations ago.  Anyone who has done their family tree extensively can tell you that.
 
2013-03-20 08:54:06 AM
tennessee.hillbilly: Wait...  Were Adam and Eve in Alabama?


imageshack.us
 
2013-03-20 08:56:27 AM

ModernLuddite: Quantum Apostrophe: StrangeQ: WhyteRaven74: Given how little genetic diversity there is among humans? Well it means at some point not all that long ago, in evolutionary terms anyways, there weren't very many people around. And they were all near each other and intermingling so you pretty much ended up with what amounts to inbreeding. As for how little genetic diversity there is among humans, there's significantly less genetic diversity among humans than there is chimpanzees.

We also have fewer genes than a carrot.

Plants usually have more genes than we do. They don't control their temperature, so they need to encode for different enzymes that work in all kinds of temperature ranges.

Currently 0% of plants in the United States graduate high school. They are doing worse than Mexicans.


But then they still end up getting elected to Congress...
 
2013-03-20 09:13:50 AM

StrangeQ: We also have fewer genes than a carrot


i244.photobucket.com

what a large-gened carrot-topped superior life form might look like
 
2013-03-20 09:18:35 AM
Genesis 1-4

And lo, Adam said "Incest is best...keep it in the family b*tch".


......the bible. A story book full of incest, murder, rape, and killing people all in the name of God.
 
2013-03-20 09:19:22 AM

Feepit: Adam and Eve "knowing" their children and their children "knowing" one another is still less morally polluted than evolution, which requires the first orgasm to engage in self-abuse to replicate itself not to mention tons of bestiality. If God intended for us to have sex with animals, he would have made us animals.


Were not the ones saying that anything is immoral. We are simply asking if Adam f*cked his sons and daughters in the ass.

We want the answesr now.
 
2013-03-20 09:26:55 AM

Milo Minderbinder: Was this skull homo sapien or Denisovan? "Human" is used pretty broadly these days...


The orbits look too rectangular and large to be H. sapien.
 
2013-03-20 09:30:07 AM

ModernLuddite: Quantum Apostrophe: StrangeQ: WhyteRaven74: Given how little genetic diversity there is among humans? Well it means at some point not all that long ago, in evolutionary terms anyways, there weren't very many people around. And they were all near each other and intermingling so you pretty much ended up with what amounts to inbreeding. As for how little genetic diversity there is among humans, there's significantly less genetic diversity among humans than there is chimpanzees.

We also have fewer genes than a carrot.

Plants usually have more genes than we do. They don't control their temperature, so they need to encode for different enzymes that work in all kinds of temperature ranges.

Currently 0% of plants in the United States graduate high school. They are doing worse than Mexicans.


"And why do you worry about clothes? Look at how the lilies in the field grow. They don't work or make clothes for themselves. But I tell you that even Solomon with his riches was not dressed as beautifully as one of these flowers. God clothes the grass in the field, which is alive today but tomorrow is thrown into the fire. So you can be even more sure that God will clothe you. Don't have so little faith!"

/farking plants need to go back where they came from and stop relying on handouts
 
2013-03-20 09:57:03 AM
I'm going with this:

2.bp.blogspot.com

All this has happened before, and all this will happen again.
 
2013-03-20 10:02:40 AM
Depends on how strict you define the term.  On the sibling/sibling parent/child front probably not, but with such small and slow moving populations for most of history, there was most definitely plenty of farking going on between degrees of cousins you could count with one hand.  And that's not a problem in the defect department unless you keep doing cousin #1 over and over again.
 
2013-03-20 10:14:33 AM
Well, like TFA says, populations of tribal humanity in this period were probably pretty small, like less than a hundred people in the tribe with very few infusions of outside blood even given a couple generations.  That's what "inbreeding" means in the scientific sense, it's a longer-term statistical thing.

In the sense the Mail is implying of outright incest, no, human developmental psychology doesn't generally work that way.  We're pretty hard-wired to regard siblings and parents as off-limits if we're actually raised in close proximity.  Bets are kind of off for immediate family raised separately, sure, but again we're talking about tribal stuff here so that's not really an issue.
 
2013-03-20 12:14:50 PM

Milo Minderbinder: Was this skull homo sapien or Denisovan? "Human" is used pretty broadly these days...


Judging from the picture in the article, it is definitely not  H. sapiens.  There are too few "Denisovan" fossils for me to be convinced that they actually constitute a distinct species (as opposed to just being later  H. neanderthalensis or even a relic population of descendants of some erectus-grade species), but if they are, the  Xujiayao fossils might be ancestral to them.

In any case, if the "inbreeding hypothesis" for these fossils pans out, which seems possible, it's yet another bit of evidence that is inconsistent with the multiregional hypothesis and supports a unique and exclusive African origin for modern humans.   Small, inbreeding populations would not allow for the continuous, continent-spanning gene flow that multiregionalism requires.

/My $0.02   Interesting article, subby.
 
2013-03-20 12:16:52 PM

Jim_Callahan: Well, like TFA says, populations of tribal humanity in this period were probably pretty small, like less than a hundred people in the tribe with very few infusions of outside blood even given a couple generations.  That's what "inbreeding" means in the scientific sense, it's a longer-term statistical thing.

In the sense the Mail is implying of outright incest, no, human developmental psychology doesn't generally work that way.  We're pretty hard-wired to regard siblings and parents as off-limits if we're actually raised in close proximity.  Bets are kind of off for immediate family raised separately, sure, but again we're talking about tribal stuff here so that's not really an issue.


That's not necessarily a safe assumption. Recent evidence suggests that human females may have traveled to other areas and mingled with other tribes. That, or war-bands kidnapped human females from another tribe. I think it's ambiguous since the main evidence just shows that bones of a human female were from another area far away.

I can't find a link right now, but I distinctly remember reading about it. Anyone have a citation on the research I'm referring to?
 
2013-03-20 12:36:45 PM
I like that a story about inbreeding also links to a story about the royal family... why bother looking 100,000 years back
 
2013-03-20 12:44:56 PM

StrangeQ: WhyteRaven74: Given how little genetic diversity there is among humans? Well it means at some point not all that long ago, in evolutionary terms anyways, there weren't very many people around. And they were all near each other and intermingling so you pretty much ended up with what amounts to inbreeding. As for how little genetic diversity there is among humans, there's significantly less genetic diversity among humans than there is chimpanzees.

We also have fewer genes than a carrot.  There's a lot of genetics and evolutionary biology that we still have left to learn.


Word that genetic researchers have discovered a cell of rice contains more genes than a human cell has caused widespread outrage as people across the globe attempt to prove that humans are easily as smart as a grain of rice
 
2013-03-20 01:14:39 PM

FloydA: Milo Minderbinder: Was this skull homo sapien or Denisovan? "Human" is used pretty broadly these days...

Judging from the picture in the article, it is definitely not  H. sapiens.  There are too few "Denisovan" fossils for me to be convinced that they actually constitute a distinct species (as opposed to just being later  H. neanderthalensis or even a relic population of descendants of some erectus-grade species), but if they are, the  Xujiayao fossils might be ancestral to them.

In any case, if the "inbreeding hypothesis" for these fossils pans out, which seems possible, it's yet another bit of evidence that is inconsistent with the multiregional hypothesis and supports a unique and exclusive African origin for modern humans.   Small, inbreeding populations would not allow for the continuous, continent-spanning gene flow that multiregionalism requires.

/My $0.02   Interesting article, subby.


Neanderthals in China? Isn't that a bit far?

/Not professional anthropologist
//I want a H. Florensiensis to work for me, like a monkey butler
 
2013-03-20 01:53:22 PM
These guys should have just talked to a mathematician.

All humans are the product of extremely rampant inbreeding. All humans, including you. And the inbreeding was very recent. You dont have to go back to the Paleolithic era. There is a simple mathematical proof.

Assuming no inbreeding, you should have (2**g) ancestors, where g is the number of generations you go back. 1 generation = 2 parents, 2 generations = 4 grandparents, 3 generation = 8 greatgrand....and so on.

Okay, so assume a generation is about 30 years. (People have children, if they are going to, on average, by age 30.) So 40 generations represents 1200 years.

The problem is that 2**40 (1 Trillion) is a thousand times more people than existed on earth 1200 years ago. It is impossible for you to have anywhere near 2**40 ancestors in that time frame. The reason is that given individuals filled in multiple spots in your family tree. For example, Individual 'A' is your Great-grandfather, great uncle, and also grandfather.
Millions upon millions of pairings in your recent ancestry are close inbreeding. It is simply mathematically impossible to be otherwise.

Remember that next time you accuse someone of being inbred. (A common fark put down)
 
2013-03-20 01:56:33 PM
Milo Minderbinder:

Neanderthals in China? Isn't that a bit far?

Not really.  We know that the Denisova cave in the Altai mountains was occupied by neandertals, and looking at a topo map, the easiest route to Altai, from neandertal sites in SW Asia or those in Eastern Europe passes through northern Xinjiang.

There's no evidence that there were ever substantial numbers of neandertals in China, but since there were at least some in Siberia and Mongolia, there must have been at least a few in China.

Consider, from sites in Ukraine, the only way to get to Altai is through Xinjiang (remember that much farther north would be glaciated).  Or if they were traveling to Altai from SW Asia (e.g. Shanidar or Tabun), they could either go west of the Zagros or south along the Persian Gulf, and then north again, west of the Hindu Kush.

Forgive my q&d MS Paint map.

i105.photobucket.com

We know that neandertals made it to Denisova (Google maps point A above), and we know that they had previously been, at various times, in both SW Asia and in Europe.  So no matter where they were coming from, the easiest route into the Altai mountains would be along the north shore of Lake Balkhash and between Lake Alakol and Lake Zaysan.

Either that, or they could have followed the Amu Darya drainage, but again, that would lead them right to western Xinjiang.

At least that would be my guess.  Seems like the most obvious route to me.
 
2013-03-20 02:03:20 PM

Jim_Callahan: Well, like TFA says, populations of tribal humanity in this period were probably pretty small, like less than a hundred people in the tribe with very few infusions of outside blood even given a couple generations.  That's what "inbreeding" means in the scientific sense, it's a longer-term statistical thing.

In the sense the Mail is implying of outright incest, no, human developmental psychology doesn't generally work that way.  We're pretty hard-wired to regard siblings and parents as off-limits if we're actually raised in close proximity.  Bets are kind of off for immediate family raised separately, sure, but again we're talking about tribal stuff here so that's not really an issue.


Technically a group of 100 or fewer hunter gatherers is called a 'band', rather than a tribe. And from what we know the membership of bands tended to be quite fluid. Although most people in a band would have been related to each other in some way, you could leave one band and join another, which people did not only to find mates, but as a way of resolving disputes - if you don't like what the group is doing, you leave. Also, many people developed complex taboos about who could get together with whom, which had the effect of reducing inbreeding. That's not to say that it didn't take place, but where it happened, it would most likely have been because that group became isolated and couldn't find other people to mix with.
 
2013-03-20 02:08:34 PM

FloydA: Milo Minderbinder:

Neanderthals in China? Isn't that a bit far?

Not really.  We know that the Denisova cave in the Altai mountains was occupied by neandertals, and looking at a topo map, the easiest route to Altai, from neandertal sites in SW Asia or those in Eastern Europe passes through northern Xinjiang.

There's no evidence that there were ever substantial numbers of neandertals in China, but since there were at least some in Siberia and Mongolia, there must have been at least a few in China.

Consider, from sites in Ukraine, the only way to get to Altai is through Xinjiang (remember that much farther north would be glaciated).  Or if they were traveling to Altai from SW Asia (e.g. Shanidar or Tabun), they could either go west of the Zagros or south along the Persian Gulf, and then north again, west of the Hindu Kush.

Forgive my q&d MS Paint map.



We know that neandertals made it to Denisova (Google maps point A above), and we know that they had previously been, at various times, in both SW Asia and in Europe.  So no matter where they were coming from, the easiest route into the Altai mountains would be along the north shore of Lake Balkhash and between Lake Alakol and Lake Zaysan.

Either that, or they could have followed the Amu Darya drainage, but again, that would lead them right to western Xinjiang.

At least that would be my guess.  Seems like the most obvious route to me.


Wow, very interesting, thanks! If I had to do it all over again, I would have studied anthropology; much more interesting than the stupid practice of law.
 
2013-03-20 02:20:54 PM

FloydA: Milo Minderbinder:

Neanderthals in China? Isn't that a bit far?

Not really.  We know that the Denisova cave in the Altai mountains was occupied by neandertals, and looking at a topo map, the easiest route to Altai, from neandertal sites in SW Asia or those in Eastern Europe passes through northern Xinjiang.

There's no evidence that there were ever substantial numbers of neandertals in China, but since there were at least some in Siberia and Mongolia, there must have been at least a few in China.

Consider, from sites in Ukraine, the only way to get to Altai is through Xinjiang (remember that much farther north would be glaciated).  Or if they were traveling to Altai from SW Asia (e.g. Shanidar or Tabun), they could either go west of the Zagros or south along the Persian Gulf, and then north again, west of the Hindu Kush.

Forgive my q&d MS Paint map.



We know that neandertals made it to Denisova (Google maps point A above), and we know that they had previously been, at various times, in both SW Asia and in Europe.  So no matter where they were coming from, the easiest route into the Altai mountains would be along the north shore of Lake Balkhash and between Lake Alakol and Lake Zaysan.

Either that, or they could have followed the Amu Darya drainage, but again, that would lead them right to western Xinjiang.

At least that would be my guess.  Seems like the most obvious route to me.


On second reading, are you assuming that the Denisovan cave residents were Neanderthals because you don't think "Denisovan" is a separate species? Setting aside that cave, where are the most eastern Neanderthal remains found?
 
2013-03-20 02:38:06 PM
I just had an interesting hypothesis pop into my head. It's odd but intriguing, so bear with me.

If humans are naturally nomadic, and also if humans originated from one area of the world but obviously live all over it today, that would imply that nomadic bands routinely explored new areas humans had never been.

As a result, interbreeding would be inevitable because there simply were no other people around (I mean "inevitable" loosely - maybe it was inevitable but rare, or inevitable but common). For the sake of argument, assume familial interbreeding happened extremely often because otherwise, isolated nomadic bands literally couldn't produce enough offspring to survive.

Despite this hypothetical rampant in-breeding, humanity somehow survived and flourished (as we see today). Would that mean that humans have some kind of natural genetic processes that protect from the worst of in-breeding (because our ancestors without those mechanisms died from defects)?

On the other hand, maybe humanity was once on the cusp of extinction due to screwed up in-bred hereditary. Every person today (no matter who you are) could be an unhealthy mess. As a result, as a species we have not ever observed an individual with "good" health and therefore don't know any better.

tldr: What if everyone is unknowingly an unhealthy mutant due to our restless, desperate fore-bearers O_o
 
2013-03-20 03:08:10 PM
Milo Minderbinder:

On second reading, are you assuming that the Denisovan cave residents were Neanderthals because you don't think "Denisovan" is a separate species? Setting aside that cave, where are the most eastern Neanderthal remains found?

I admit that I'm not sure what the Denisovans were, but in this instance, I've included Altai because there were at least some "classic" neandertal materials found there too (as well as some humans).    Remember that the cave was consistently re-occupied for something like 120K years, and there are at least 20 cultural layers.  The "X Woman" fossils are the most famous, of course (because we don't know what they are yet), but the cave was also occupied by neandertals (earlier) and humans (probably later than "X woman"), so the Denisovans, whatever they were, were not the only people to use the cave.

That is, unless the Denisovans were a completely distinct species, derived from some erectus-grade hominin, and the tools that look like neandertal tools in Denisova are similar due to functional convergence.  That's possible.

Other than that, there are a few sites in Ukraine that are the next most farthest east... well, technically, I suppose Shanidar is farther east than Ukraine, just barely, but much further south.  Those are the stars in the image I posted above.

HTH

(And if I had to do it all over again, I'd have done the same thing, but taken out fewer student loans!  :-)  It really is the best job in the world, imo.)
 
2013-03-20 03:17:38 PM
torusXL:

tldr: What if everyone is unknowingly an unhealthy mutant due to our restless, desperate fore-bearers O_o

We are, although not just due to close breeding.  Remember that selection is not trying to make anything "perfect," just "works well enough to last until mating season."  That's why we get problems such as Alzheimers, adult diabetus, cancer, Huntington's disease, male pattern baldness, bad backs, fallen arches, creaky knees, etc. - once you make it past breeding age, you're just in the way.  Selection has no way to "weed out" adult-onset problems like those because, by the time the symptoms manifest, the individual has already reproduced.

So, yeah, we're unhealthy mutants, but not because our ancestors were "banjo-playin' hill folk."
 
2013-03-20 03:19:56 PM
 
2013-03-20 04:54:44 PM
It's Adam and Eve not Adam and Mom?!?
 
2013-03-20 06:18:10 PM
FTFA:"
Although this genetic abnormality is sometimes associated with cognitive deficits, the older adult age of Xujiayao 11 suggests that any such deficits in this individual were minor."

...or maybe the parents just really, really loved their offspring and cared for them into adulthood despite their "cognitive defects"?

/probably made a great beast of burden
//HEY YOU GUUUUUYYYYYYYS!
 
2013-03-20 06:28:30 PM
encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com

Mmm, begets...
 
2013-03-20 06:34:10 PM
Everyone that came from Adam and Eve died off in the great flood, except for the handful that sailed with Noah.  All people today came from the ark.  The animals too.  I don't know how Noah managed to get all the animals to the locations they now reside.  That farker was one hell of a sailor.  No point debating whether the Vikings, Chinese, or a guy from Spain were the first non-native people to happen upon America.  It had to have been Noah that put the American Bison and Racoons here.  Want proof, read the bible.  While I'm spouting facts, this would be the time to mention you all owe me a million dollars.  I could prove it, but...
 
2013-03-20 06:38:03 PM
tatsuma told me they were genetically perfect.
 
2013-03-20 08:19:32 PM
Missed opportunity for the Obvious tag. Of course there was a lot of inbreeding. Southerners were the true First People, because they never got the memo that inbreeding was baaaaad bad bad now.
 
2013-03-20 08:46:07 PM

FloydA: torusXL:

tldr: What if everyone is unknowingly an unhealthy mutant due to our restless, desperate fore-bearers O_o

We are, although not just due to close breeding.  Remember that selection is not trying to make anything "perfect," just "works well enough to last until mating season."  That's why we get problems such as Alzheimers, adult diabetus, cancer, Huntington's disease, male pattern baldness, bad backs, fallen arches, creaky knees, etc. - once you make it past breeding age, you're just in the way.  Selection has no way to "weed out" adult-onset problems like those because, by the time the symptoms manifest, the individual has already reproduced.

So, yeah, we're unhealthy mutants, but not because our ancestors were "banjo-playin' hill folk."


Maybe it's both.... -_-
 
2013-03-20 08:55:40 PM

Feepit: Adam and Eve "knowing" their children and their children "knowing" one another is still less morally polluted than evolution, which requires the first orgasm to engage in self-abuse to replicate itself not to mention tons of bestiality. If God intended for us to have sex with animals, he would have made us animals.


That's actually an interesting point. Does evolution mean there was a first one and only human and if so how did that human reproduce?

Of course there are other problems with the Bible's story - who did Adam and Eve's children do the nasty with in order to reproduce?
 
2013-03-20 09:44:44 PM

ModernLuddite: Quantum Apostrophe: StrangeQ: WhyteRaven74: Given how little genetic diversity there is among humans? Well it means at some point not all that long ago, in evolutionary terms anyways, there weren't very many people around. And they were all near each other and intermingling so you pretty much ended up with what amounts to inbreeding. As for how little genetic diversity there is among humans, there's significantly less genetic diversity among humans than there is chimpanzees.

We also have fewer genes than a carrot.

Plants usually have more genes than we do. They don't control their temperature, so they need to encode for different enzymes that work in all kinds of temperature ranges.

Currently 0% of plants in the United States graduate high school. They are doing worse than Mexicans.


On the flip side, 2.3% of America's presidents have been plants, so by that metric they're doing better than the Mexicans.
 
Displayed 50 of 55 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report