Most people today, even though their skin color is different, originate from several lineages from different places on earth. In this respect we are all similar to Barack Obama, and also how the birth control in China affected the demographic balance, especially in undeveloped rural areas
About a week ago we brought Prof. Marcus Feldman's words of blessing, one of the winners of the Dan David Prize for 2011 whose past dimension was devoted to evolution. Before leaving the country, he was interviewed especially for the Hidaan site, and expanded on the points he emphasized in the words of the blessing.
"For a long time people believed that there were great biological differences between the human races. After our studies of hundreds of thousands of sites in DNA (nucleotides) it became clear that there is very strong evidence that the absolute majority of the differences between humans are within the populations and not between the so-called continental races."
"Only 10% of the genetic variation is between continents, for example between Africa and Europe. 90% is within populations within a continent. For example, half of the diversity in all of Africa is found only within the pygmies, the hunters for the small-sized ones scattered throughout Africa. This means that in my view the textbooks should change the definitions and usage of the concept of race. What we have discovered is that many people on Earth are like Barack Obama, they are not African, they are not European, they are a combination of distant ancestors from many places. For example, in the Middle East, most of the Druze, Bedouins and Palestinians have distant ancestors from three different areas."
"In western China and Pakistan, most people have ancestors equally distant from three geographic groups - from China, Europe and South Asia.
I want the term Race to be changed to what I call Ancestry
Group because this tells a lot more about the genetic history of these people and combined with information about their environment, the use of the term will become more and more medically important. For example, if you grew up in an environment that has malaria, this has a significant effect because it tells you a lot about how likely you are to have a gene called hemoglobin S, which causes anemia. For example, I can say that you came from Cyprus and that there was also malaria there. The doctors are supposed to encourage looking for G6PD - the gene that causes people to be allergic to Paul, this gene also causes anemia, and even severe. But it protects against malaria. The history of man's ancestors is more important to understanding both evolution and relating it to disease.
"These are the things we discovered through the study of the human genome in detail. This is over a thousand people from over 50 populations on every continent except Australia."
"The second important finding is that when we studied variation in humans from different places, we saw that most of the genetic variation was in Africa and the farther you go from Africa, the amount of variation decreases until it reaches a minimum among native Americans. This shows us how the migration of humans took place in the last 60-70 thousand years. We mainly discussed with local ethnic groups. In these people, you can follow how a small group left Africa and formed a colony, and the next colony was a subgroup of this group, so there is a continuous decrease in diversity that we call the SERIAL FOUNDER EFFECT.
But what is even more interesting is that the variation is getting smaller and smaller not only in genes but also in languages. In a study we studied 504 languages around the world and showed that the same effect exists, in an article just published in Science we show that the variation of sound (PHONEME) in languages shows the same pattern as variation in DNA. 504 languages are spoken. In particular, the variation is great among Native Americans, because they were isolated and lived in small groups.
The split from a small group explains why the Ashkenazi Jews are infected with many genetic diseases, there are many unique diseases due to the influence of the small populations. The theory of evolution predicts that this will be the case. This is one of the reasons why the theory of evolution is so important."
"The theory of evolution also suggests that we look at different parts of the DNA, not only the parts that produce proteins but also the parts that regulate how the proteins are produced. Many evolutionists believe that the force of natural selection will be strongest on regulatory regions of DNA. Because they determine how much of the protein will be made and when, and in which tissue it will be made. It's like having a factory and next to it there is a switch that turns it on or off, but sometimes there is also a dimmer that allows you to increase or decrease the brightness of the light, that's what the regulatory genes do. These are all results that come out of an evolutionary analysis."
Through a combination of studying DNA and using computer analysis we can estimate how far back in time modern humans left Africa and when modern humans originated. Where is the origin of modern man. We now believe that modern humans were created 100-150 thousand years before our era. However, we lived for thousands of years at the same time as the Neanderthals in Europe. The latest evidence shows that modern humans contain about 1% of the Neanderthal genome. If this is the case, there may have been hybridization at some point.
The Neanderthals are a lineage that separated from the original homo sapiens lineage, but they separated a long time ago - 500 thousand years, before modern humans separated from that lineage, the question arises why humans were able to beat them in the competition, they may have had a superior culture and better tools, it may be was due to modern man's superiority in languages so that they could communicate better, paleoanthropologists cannot say what is the specific reason why this happened. And in fact in Israel Domani in the Tabon Cave in Carmel found bones of Neanderthals and modern humans when the mystery was that while the bones of Neanderthals are 35 thousand years old, about the time they became extinct in Europe, the bones of Homo sapiens are XNUMX thousand years old. People like Prof. Yoel Reck from Tel Aviv University asked big questions about how it is possible that the two types of bones are found together and whether it is possible that there was something between Neanderthals and modern humans, an intermediate form that became extinct."
Genetics now allows us to obtain the complete Neanderthal DNA and show how it relates to modern humans. In addition, fossils belonging to Neanderthals were found in Central Asia that gave a clue to the migration of modern humans through East Asia into Oceania, today we see the pattern of movement of modern humans into Southeast Asia and Oceania (Polynesic) in all these populations traces of Neanderthals were found that are decreasing over time and with the distance This is another example of how the theory of evolution allows us to penetrate deep times and relate it to how we arrived at the genes we have today.
As Prof. Feldman emphasized in his congratulatory remarks, human cultural evolution also has an effect on other species. In an interview, he explains: "We must take into account important cultural events in human history and it is possible that the most important event was the invention of agriculture and animal domestication. First, it made it possible to increase the population quickly because there was much more food, secondly, because of the change in diet, this required a change in the genes, because we got used to the new food and digest it, so the genes that allow us to drink milk were not there before, and similarly genes that allow us to make bread, potatoes . These genes are completely different in hunter-gatherers than in modern humans. The reason must be natural selection, those who happened to have suitable genes enjoyed better nutrition.
I always use this as an example of how a cultural event left a footprint in the human genome. In the last 10-20 thousand years, most of the changes in humans were due to cultural events and their consequences for biological evolution. This is why I study cultural evolution.”
Preference for boys in China
"A strong example of the power of cultural evolution is the preference for whites in China. There are two basic reasons why this developed. The first is almost religious, since the days of Confucius, it was important to make the ancestors happy, and you do this by continuing their surname. The family line and this is possible only through males, like Cohen with us.
The second reason is that an attitude has developed that after the son gets married, it is his wife's job to take responsibility for his parents. She becomes part of his family and leaves the original family she was born into. If you only have daughters, no one will take care of you when you are old. We are talking about a society that until 20 years ago was entirely agricultural. There was enormous pressure on a couple to have at least one son. Until 30 years ago it was very easy to get a son - just keep having children until you have a son. So you can both take care of your fathers and social security and security for old age by having a son just by having many children.
30 years ago when the fertility policy changed (starting in 1978 and enforced starting in 1980-81). People in the cities were only allowed to have one child, and people in the agricultural areas were allowed to have one to two children. If a first daughter was born, most of the villagers, almost everywhere in China, tried to have another child and used abortions to ensure that the second one would be a boy.
"What happened is that the cultural preference that did not change when there was no limit on the number of children is now tangible. You see her. The sex ratio at birth for the first child is almost normal, 50%. The sex ratio for the second child is 150, meaning 150 boys for every 100 girls. Normally it's 106 boys for 100 girls (where later boys die faster because they only have one X chromosome and the diseases on the X chromosome cause boys to die more quickly after birth)
But in China this has led to the so-called marriage squeeze (MARRIEGE SQUEEZE) where there are too many men looking for brides and not enough girls to marry them, it's like a shortage in the market. The marriage market now favors girls. You see hundreds of small villages in the poor areas of China where there are no girls of marriageable age. They go on to marry men who have more assets. About 30 million men in China today cannot find brides. We predict that this will result in a million more men each year unable to find brides. This is a big problem for society, and the Chinese government understands this and is taking steps to change the culture of favoritism. By providing financial benefits to families who only have girls, and giving the girls in these families a free high school education. This is a program known as CARE FOR GIRLS.
"There are debates in academia in China regarding the question of whether the two-child policy should be changed and the argument today is not only about the gender ratio but also about the future of China's economy because the number of marriages is decreasing, the number of girls is decreasing, so the number of children is decreasing, there will be fewer people working to Pay for the elderly and life expectancy is rising rapidly in China. It's an economic problem, not just a cultural problem."
"The policy stemmed from the need to ensure that there would be enough food for the people in China and in a way, the economic boom in China could not have happened if they had another 400 million people. Most people estimate that the program saved 400 million births. So the economic growth could not have happened if not for that."
When you talked about research in DNA and proteins, surely this is a huge computing power?
Prof. Feldman: "For our work we actually require two types of calculation, one is the analysis of huge sets of data - billions upon billions, and the other is a simulation of what will happen in the future with evolutionary models. These are academic models that have designed everything we know about biology to make evolutionary predictions. My group uses massively parallel computing, we have clusters of computers that have hundreds of processors and my prediction is that in the next five years of molecular biology the computing side will employ more people than the laboratory side because the information that is produced by robots but the analysis of the information cannot be done by robots so it is necessary Skilled bioinformaticians, sophisticated programmers and people who understand the biological problems but are experts in computing."
"This is true not only for evolution research but for most areas of molecular biology. Questions of protein folding, explaining the structure of molecules, networks of enzymes communicating with each other, many parts of molecular biology today where the limitation is computing, there is so much data. This is my prediction about the growth of the use of computing. Israel is very strong in bioinformatics. They recognized this need quite early, at the Weizmann Institute, Tel Aviv University (computer science), the Hebrew University, the Technion (computational biology department) and all the main universities are currently training high quality graduates in the field. I see these people because I am a member of the Yad Hanadiv Foundation for postdoctoral students and I see the offers of high-quality PHD graduates as anywhere else in the world and they are in the field of bioinformatics and computational biology."
Unfortunately, the science of ecology and evolution within universities worldwide has not received the support it deserves from university administrations and governments. We understand today that as the environment changes and there is a need for people to understand what the effects will be on ecosystems and the evolution of creatures of all species, including humans. I believe that it is a mistake of OT in Israel and its equivalents to allow these disciplines to suffer, compared to the support that fields closer to industry receive.
"These disciplines will determine most of the fate of the quality of life on the planet and they need to be supported through more professors and more scholarships for students. I believe that the recognition by Dan David and the foundation of the importance of evolution indicates the need to develop these fields both in Israel and in the world as important for the benefit of the human race."
More of the topic in Hayadan:
"Precisely in this period it is good to recognize the importance of evolution"
32 תגובות
How is the house culture of Africans (they rape baby girls fucking six months!!!!) less cruel than the Nazi culture?
Iodocentric like you.
And in general Judeo-centric culture is a fixation of barbaric African cultures, only in holy and refined words.
Related to Judeo-Christian culture. Racism, misogyny, opacity, cruelty, tribalism and prohibition of critical thinking.
See what happens when these laws are taken too seriously - Taliban.
And everything that is good in the West opposes these concepts.
which, despite the greater genetic difference within African groups - is not so reflected in the appearance.
The appearance of Eastern Europeans, for example, is much more diverse - both in terms of facial features and in terms of colors. They have thousands of shades of green, turquoise, blue, purple, brown and their combinations in the eyes, hair in many shades and skin in many shades.
In contrast African blacks come in an almost uniform shade and style of hair, eyes and skin.
I hope he's joking. Jewish perceptions are ultra-tribal.
In general, the tendency towards a tribal concept and division of "us versus them" is mainly male.
They are the complete opposite of humanism.
Judeo-Christian concepts, including monotheistic and patriarchal, conflict with the essence of developed morality and humanism.
Everything western related to monotheism is screwed up, sick, dark and brings a lot of suffering.
African cultures did not evolve, just as Judeo-Christian cultures did not evolve.
There may have been far more successful African cultures than Judeo-Christian cultures.
But they probably didn't reach enlightenment.
open minded (20)
Did I understand you correctly and you claim that religions such as Judaism and Christianity sanctify the lives of all human beings in the same way? That means even those who do not belong to their religion?
I must have misunderstood you or you are joking... is that what you meant? seriously?
Hahahahaha….. 🙂
Ghosts:
Personally, I think that it is definitely possible that there are mental differences between people as a result of their race. This is not unthinkable because the genes really affect traits such as intelligence, aggression, religious fanaticism and more.
Therefore I do not deny his claim.
I'm just saying that the foundation he's basing it on is shaky.
The atmosphere of political correctness that prevails in our places also justifies his request to avoid blatant humanist platitudes. It was really reasonable that some of the commenters would take issue with his words for ideological reasons and not for factual reasons, and this kind of reservation does not promote knowledge.
I do not know which "respondent 19" he was referring to in response 4.
Since I don't think he boasts prophetic ability, I assume it's simply a technical glitch (maybe he already wrote the comment on another site and copied it from there - I don't know)
Machel
I think 'open thinker' already answered everything for you in his 4th comment.
He did so when he admitted that he was: "a racist who associates a certain mental incapacity with genetic difference."
He is also really interested in the subject, here note: "I would be happy to hear conflicting opinions or conflicting witnesses"
And he even predicted the hanging of the eyes! Pay attention to the following sentence he wrote: "(Please refrain from screaming "humanist" gibberish. To commenter 19: Yes, I am a dark and ignorant person)" - that is, he is not just a prophet!
He is also a dark and ignorant person!
Wow.
open minded:
Regarding humanism - just read the Wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism And focus on the episode "Predecessors".
I didn't take my words from there, but since human history is equally accessible to everyone, the writers of the Wikipedia entry also came to the same conclusions.
You did not answer my other reservations.
To 18 (Uri S): We went out both hired. Give thanks to TED.
To commenter 19: I do not know of an ancient Hindu or Greek source that consecrates the lives of all human beings in the same way. I would be happy to receive relevant place mirrors.
The original Buddhism may have aimed at this, but it does not explicitly sanctify life.
(But as mentioned, see my earlier comment to you in my first answer in 4)
open minded:
I did not make the claim that no one wrote an article about your opinion as an objection to your opinion, but only as a description of the reason why I could not provide a reference for what you said, as you, for some reason, demanded.
If there is no article on the subject, then obviously - there is no authority that commented on the article and therefore there would be no evidence to depend on them and therefore your demand on the matter was strange to say the least.
Humanism, although not called by this name, grew in Hindu culture long before it grew in Judeo-Christian culture and it also grew in ancient Greece. That's why I missed his contribution to the Judeo-Christian culture.
Even if it had its roots in Judeo-Christian culture - it would not be a situation of emanation from "Judeo-Christianity" because these are two clearly non-humanistic religions that humanism grew mainly as an opposition to them.
I suggest that you focus your argument and tell me what you think the additional genes give us (whether Neanderthals or others). On the topic of science and technology you said you don't address, on the topic of connecting to large groups you received an answer that you didn't answer, so what exactly is left?
By the way, another word on the subject of humanism: let's say it really came from the Judeo-Christian culture - what does this mean? Do you think there was some kind of genetic mutation that produced it? After all, there were no Neanderthals then. So it grew out of something else - but it took many thousands of years for it to grow. This shows that it is a cultural product and not genetic.
For an open mind.
Yesterday I did searches on the subject of a smooth board. I came across Pinker's lecture at TED. Interesting and thanks.
For 15 (Michael):
1. I recommended you read again/for the first time "Guns Bacteria and Steel". Precisely there are presented excellent arguments and many examples that help to establish claims _opposite_ to those I presented.
Still, my contention is that the claims made there ignore the great difference between the cultures of Africans and those of the inhabitants of Central America. (Except perhaps for the claim of aggression that is embedded in animals in Africa towards humans and that is not shared by animals in America to the same extent)
2. The fact that no one has written the claim that I am presenting here, does not mean that it is not true, nor does it mean that other people think so. It is easy to understand academics in the Western world who would decide to hide this opinion in light of the expected reaction of any pseudo-liberal whatsoever.
3. The origin of humanism in the Judeo-Christian culture because it was the first to put the life of each person first and in a significant way and claimed that they are sacred. Note that the conquistadors claimed that the Indians were not human (so they could massacre them in the name of the church). Of course, there are many other arguments for this, but this is the basis.
Of course, this did not prevent their creation from waging bloody wars, but it is important to note that the basis remains the same.
Judaism and Protestant Christianity form the direct basis for the growth of humanism because they embody the emphasis on man's life and feelings in this world and his actions and feelings in this world.
open minded
Due to time I will write briefly:
Yesterday I saw a program on TV about a professor who did research on the culture of the blacks in the USA.
His conclusions from the study were that the blacks at the age of 24 - their IQ is 17 points lower than the whites.
He showed that at the age of 1 there was already a gap between white babies and black babies, and the gap only kept growing - so that at the age of 24 the gap between blacks and whites amounted to a difference of 17 points more in favor of the whites.
He explained this by saying that the (Negro) parents punish more and treat their children more negatively than the whites.
He went on to explain that the gap has grown over the years because blacks 'foster' and 'drive' this subculture.
However, his conclusions following this were:
The more difficult the environment is for the individual, the more creative the individual must be in order to survive in that difficult environment.
But, while the blacks show creativity (in order to survive in their environment) - they fail to integrate into the same environment as the whites.
That is, the whites and the blacks are equal in their ability to analyze their environment well enough to survive - but each and every one of them does it in their own way.
open minded:
What references exactly did you watch? After all, I did not claim anything except the fact (which really does not need confirmation) - that Western culture only grew after many very many years of history in which the culture was poor.
It is true that it is important to define what is called culture and it is true that I referred more to the matter of science and ignored what you were probably aiming for, which is the organization in large groups, but it does not seem like a genetic matter but rather like a matter of will. The African environment was suitable for the life of hunters and gatherers and in the environment outside of Africa it was difficult to survive without organizing to create agriculture, but it should be remembered that even Homo Sapiens did not organize in large societies for tens of thousands of years after the Neanderthals (who themselves, of course, never built villages or cities and Sagev, the transliteration The correct name of their name should have been Neanderthals, B T, but this is a mistake that has taken root).
In short - all I really claimed was that the basis for your claim is shaky, and since no one in the literature has yet written about your claim (probably because its basis is shaky) - I will not be able to provide any evidence for what I said.
By the way - the values of Judeo-Christian culture are not humanistic.
In humanism - man is in the center and he enacts the laws. Humanism is opposition to religion. Read the Wikipedia entry.
Our neighbors in the Middle East are an example of how culture determines a lot and this only strengthens my argument that the basis for your words is shaky and that it is most likely the evolution of culture and not of genes.
To 12: According to the best of my understanding, you did not present established sources that claim otherwise.
The claims you made are also not supported by reference to sources or concentrations of sources.
You are of course welcome to present placeholders that negate the large amount of references presented by Pinker in the "smooth panel". Read the chapter in which he shows that the concept of the "noble savage" is wrong and only stems from romantic concepts that are not based in reality.
You are missing the point:
I am not claiming that Africans are basically murderous or that they do not have the capacity for intelligence in the fields of science and engineering.
My argument is about the society they succeed or fail to maintain.
You can learn the fact that genes affect the possible structures of animal packs very quickly if you try to breed a pack of wolves instead of a pack of dogs. (hint: it will end unsuccessfully and probably very ugly)
In a similar way, it is likely that the genetic load of humans affects their ability to perceive or internalize these and other social structures.
My contention is that Africans probably find it very difficult to accept social structures of very large societies. It is likely that the tribal concept is stronger in them.
And regarding our neighbors in the Middle East:
Their main problem is the poisonous culture of Islam.
See the damage of Islam in Asia which parallels the damage Islam has done to the Arabs. (in the 20th century/1 for those who didn't understand)
But we will continue on that elsewhere.
open minded,
First of all, the North American Indians, the Polynesians and the Australian aborigines never developed empires either. And as you say, go out and learn.
Secondly, even if we assume that you are right that the blacks never developed a culture (and you didn't) what is the proof that it is due to a lack of the "Neanderthal genes"? Maybe it's because they have a gene for pigment density or a gene for wide lips? After all, the difference between them and the others can have a huge variety of explanations: genetic, historical and social, different and different, what do you think about the Neanderthal matter?
Did the Neanderthals ever develop a culture?
open minded:
I do not rule out the differences that may or may not exist, but the evidence you are basing yourself on is very shaky.
You have already raised this thesis in the past and you have already received an answer:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/who-is-who-1106102/#comment-270879
You can also easily find examples of murderous societies of people genetically similar to us - just look at our neighbors in the Middle East.
Nice nice. Some people think.
To 8: You are wrong about the dimensions of the murder in Europe and the Western world in general, in relation to Africa.
In Steven Pinker's book "The Smooth Slate" you will find detailed evidence showing that the percentage of murders in Western culture is up to 2%, including the world wars, while in primitive cultures such as in Africa, the percentage of murders is 10% - 60%.
The reason for this is simple: except for the Nazis, most Europeans did not murder women and children during 1000 years of oppression in Europe. On the other hand, the Africans do not discriminate. On the contrary: they slaughter those who cannot escape = women, children and old people.
To 9: You missed the main point.
My implicit contention was that Africans were supposed to have developed a culture during the tremendous time (thousands of years) when most of humanity was mostly only in Africa. The link you presented explicitly says that African cultures developed as a response to the cultures that came to Africa from the outside with nomads.
My main argument (hanging on high stakes) is that only leaving Africa and meeting the Neanderthals gave Homo sapiens the ability to create large and complex societies.
To 10: First, like Dimon in "Guns of Germs and Steel" you ignored the fact that Central and South America also extend from north to south, and still developed large and very complex cultures without wheat and without donkeys and horses.
And regarding the colonial regime, if you read a little about the history of Africa in the last 200 years (not on the scrambled Wikipedia) you will be able to see an interesting phenomenon: the earlier an African country renounced colonialism, the more backward it is culturally, socially and economically.
The best example of the deterioration of culture is in South Africa today.
You should read a little about the opposition to the use of contraceptives and the daily routine of raping young women and children that takes place there these days, in unimaginable quantities and without significant opposition from the government.
It cannot be argued that no infrastructure was established in South Africa, since the whites did not leave at all. They mostly stayed.
Go and learn
open minded,
Perhaps the reason for what has been happening in Africa for the last several hundred years is the colonialist regime that sucked their blood, did not build infrastructure, did not let them develop and brought a state of chaos upon its departure? Besides, the Christian values are the ones that led to the Inquisition and indirectly to the Holocaust and endless murders so that Africa simply remained decades behind Europe in terms of the values of human dignity and freedom.
If you read carefully the germs and steel guns that you recommend, you will understand that the reason for the African inferiority is because Africa, unlike Eurasia, stretches from north to south and therefore the transfer of information to and from it was not good. Deserts, jungles, etc. Development stopped in North Africa north of the Sahara.
For an open mind
If you are indeed an open mind please refer to wikipedia for entries from Mali, or Ghana and you will see that you are simply wrong. Because the victors are the ones who write history, and the victors in this case were the Muslims.
Records of such kingdoms remain only thanks to Muslim travelers and traders who managed to penetrate deep into Africa in the eighth and ninth centuries.
There were ancient kingdoms in Africa. But in the end what decided against them was the excess technology that developed in the Muslim empire and turned Africa into a reservoir of potential slaves and collapsed their culture, and then white empires that did the same. And as you yourself commented: you are welcome to re-read the book "Bacterial Guns and Steel"
http://he.shvoong.com/humanities/history/1654677-%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%99-%D7%94%D7%AA%D7%A4%D7%A9%D7%98%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%90%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%91%D7%90%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%94/
For an open mind. There is no doubt about one thing, the murderous culture as it flourished in Europe until 1945 and was led by particularly light-skinned Europeans, it will not be possible to reach its dimensions, even after thousands of years of evolution in Africa. I am indeed ironically making a direct racist claim that is really not nice implying that the murderous and moral potential of the white person is extremely poor.
L-5: There are many areas in the world with a much more favorable climate than that of Africa.
Please remember that Africa is a huge continent that stretches along the same longitudes as Central South America with a similar climate in some fairly large areas.
Despite this, in South America huge civilizations were established one after the other and one parallel to the other.
Better excuses for the Africans can be found in the book "Bacterial Guns and Steel" (go out and learn) and this is still not good enough to explain the lack of success of the Africans to create developed and complex and especially large cultures.
From the observed behavior of Africans during the last centuries (relatively well documented) one can see a characteristic that repeats itself: an inability to internalize and accept Judeo-Christian values of humanism.
A possible explanation for this is that their innate morality does not contain the ability to expand the tribal concept beyond a few dozen people.
The culture to which African cultures always seem to degenerate is that of the chimpanzees. See Gene Goodall's reports of gangs of chimpanzees going on killing sprees, raping and cannibalizing neighboring chimpanzee tribes.
For those who have not yet understood: this is a direct and really unpleasant racist claim that implies that the phenomenon of mass murder rampant in Africa stems from innate sources, as well as the common phenomenon of rape in "enlightened" African countries such as South Africa.
And regarding Feldman's comment, we can rephrase:
"If Obama has Neanderthal genes, then we are all Obama"
Is it just me who thinks so, or are there other people who think he looks like Obama's twin?!
L 4 - environmental differences should also be taken into account, for example in Africa the seasonal climate fluctuations are less drastic than in Europe, which reduces the dependence on the ability to plan in advance.
What Prof. Marcus Feldman "forgot" to mention is the fact that Africans do not have the 1% Neandertal genes, unlike the rest of humanity.
At the same time, it is appropriate to take into account the fact that Africans have not been able to develop significant cultures beyond tribal culture for the hundred thousand years that Homo sapiens have existed in Africa.
Note: The Ethiopian and similar kingdoms were created and founded by incursions of celestial peoples from the Middle East into Africa.
It can then be concluded that perhaps the lack of success of the Africans in creating complex cultures is due to the lack of Neandertal genes.
For those who did not understand: this is indeed a racist claim that links a certain lack of mental capacity to genetic difference.
I would love to hear conflicting opinions or conflicting views
(Please refrain from screaming "humanist" babble. To commenter 19: Yes, I am a dark and ignorant person)
Interesting article, because of the many topics there are not enough clarifications.
Those who are interested in a note about the languages below:
"But what is even more interesting is that the diversity is getting smaller and smaller not only in genes but also in languages. In a study we studied 504 languages around the world and showed that the same effect exists, in an article just published in Science we show that the variation of sound (PHONEME) in languages shows the same pattern as variation in DNA. 504 languages are spoken. In particular, the variation is great among the Native Americans, because they were isolated and lived in small groups."
Although it says "we show" it is not Feldman's article.
Also, the impression that there is apparently a dependency between the linguistic change and genetics is wrong and is not claimed in the original article at all.
You will find additional clarifications on the original article at the following address:
http://cafe.themarker.com/post/2137857/
At the end of the 80s I took an elective course at the Hebrew University called Human Development by Dr. Anna Domna Li (Cohen). The interesting thing is that based on the analysis of archaeological findings and bone mapping, one of the fascinating conclusions that came up is that "the variation within the race is greater than the variation between the races" which led to the thought that the cultural mapping according to races is external and shallow, and is mainly biased towards skin color (pigment density), and thanks to Voldrama The brown-skinned Colombian soccer player adorned with real blond hair.
The same can be said
Point: we are all monkeys.