Africans genetically closer to Chimpanzees
Options
KTULU IS BACK
Banned Users Posts: 6,617 ✭✭
A paper by Deka, et al., titled: Population genetics of dinucleotide (dC-dA)n.(dG-dT)n polymorphisms in world populations (Am J Hum Genet. 1995 Feb;56(2):461-74) is both pertinent and long-ignored.
“We have characterized eight dinucleotide (dC-dA)n.(dG-dT)n repeat loci located on human chromosome 13q in eight human populations and in a sample of chimpanzees. Even though there is substantial variation in allele frequencie at each locus, at a given locus the most frequent alleles are shared by all human populations. … The microsatellite loci examined here are present and, with the exception of the locus D13S197, are polymorphic in the chimpanzees, showing an overlapping distribution of allele sizes with those observed in human populations.”
This study compares the genetic distances of eight human populations (Samoans, North Amerindians, South Amerindians, New Guineans, Kachari [Mongolids], Germans, more generalized Caucasians, and Sokoto: sub-Saharan Africans from Nigeria) to each other and to chimpanzees. The data were analyzed two ways - with Nei's standard genetic distance, and with modified Cavalli-Sforza distance.
Using Nei's method, the Nigerian-chimp distance was 1.334 +/- 0.375, by far the closest value. By the Cavalli-Sforza method, the Sokoto Nigerians were again the closest to chimps (0.539) by a large margin. The farthest were again the South Amerindians (0.712), with the Germans (0.680) and general Caucasians (0.667) being a very close third and fourth behind the South Amerindians as well as Samoans (0.711) and North Amerindians (0.697). So, while the two methods give slightly different orders, in both cases the Nigerians are by far the closest group to the chimps. Once again, given the first method, these sub-Saharan Africans were at 1.334 while all the other groups ranged from 1.527-1.901, and given the second method they were at 0.539 while the other groups ranged from 0.643 (Kachari again) to 0.712.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7847383
found here, in case you are wondering: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3369188&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=1
“We have characterized eight dinucleotide (dC-dA)n.(dG-dT)n repeat loci located on human chromosome 13q in eight human populations and in a sample of chimpanzees. Even though there is substantial variation in allele frequencie at each locus, at a given locus the most frequent alleles are shared by all human populations. … The microsatellite loci examined here are present and, with the exception of the locus D13S197, are polymorphic in the chimpanzees, showing an overlapping distribution of allele sizes with those observed in human populations.”
This study compares the genetic distances of eight human populations (Samoans, North Amerindians, South Amerindians, New Guineans, Kachari [Mongolids], Germans, more generalized Caucasians, and Sokoto: sub-Saharan Africans from Nigeria) to each other and to chimpanzees. The data were analyzed two ways - with Nei's standard genetic distance, and with modified Cavalli-Sforza distance.
Using Nei's method, the Nigerian-chimp distance was 1.334 +/- 0.375, by far the closest value. By the Cavalli-Sforza method, the Sokoto Nigerians were again the closest to chimps (0.539) by a large margin. The farthest were again the South Amerindians (0.712), with the Germans (0.680) and general Caucasians (0.667) being a very close third and fourth behind the South Amerindians as well as Samoans (0.711) and North Amerindians (0.697). So, while the two methods give slightly different orders, in both cases the Nigerians are by far the closest group to the chimps. Once again, given the first method, these sub-Saharan Africans were at 1.334 while all the other groups ranged from 1.527-1.901, and given the second method they were at 0.539 while the other groups ranged from 0.643 (Kachari again) to 0.712.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7847383
found here, in case you are wondering: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3369188&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=1
Comments
-
Understandable. Africa is the evolutionary birth continent. The inhabitants are closer to the origins than those that have expanded over time.
-
Aite i was one dem ? dat was like bra i aint come from no damn minkeys, but if you think about it, animals were here first and humans HAD to come from a ? so....whats the science behind dat.
-
2Gee4FourRoomz wrote: »Aite i was one dem ? dat was like bra i aint come from no damn minkeys, but if you think about it, animals were here first and humans HAD to come from a ? so....whats the science behind dat.
[IMG]http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0805/english-? -pulp-fiction-samuel-l-jackson-english-m-demotivational-poster-1210301547.jpg[/IMG]
fvbabvi baepbuvrae -
ThaChozenWun wrote: »[IMG]http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0805/english-? -pulp-fiction-samuel-l-jackson-english-m-demotivational-poster-1210301547.jpg[/IMG]
fvbabvi baepbuvrae
just pay attention to the "if you think about it, animals were here first and humans HAD to come from a ? " part that's the only important part. -
2Gee4FourRoomz wrote: »Aite i was one dem ? dat was like bra i aint come from no damn minkeys, but if you think about it, animals were here first and humans HAD to come from a ? so....whats the science behind dat.
evolution by natural selection is the science behind that, bruh -
KTULU IS BACK wrote: »evolution by natural selection is the science behind that, bruh
oh ok, didn't mean to say bra, i meant to say dude...terribly sorry chap. -
well since blacks are the first people on earth and whoever belives in evloution win for blacks
if you belive in adam and eve they had to be black beacuse science says blacks where here first win again
since ? created adam and eve from his own image blacks people is what he had in mind first, that a win -
well since blacks are the first people on earth and whoever belives in evloution win for blacks
if you belive in adam and eve they had to be black beacuse science says blacks where here first win again
since ? created adam and eve from his own image blacks people is what he had in mind first, that a win
1. ? doesn't exist
2. evolving is not a win. it's just not being dead.
3. genetically, Africans are closer to chimpanzees than any other race of people today. This is certainly not a Win. -
SMH @ beast worship
-
So?
_______________________________________________ -
So?
so all that "LOL white people are related to neanderthals" hype looks silly in comparison to this -
The Masai are considered the most genetically evolved humans.
-
The Masai are considered the most genetically evolved humans.
Nothing on the planet is "more" evolved than anything else. That is not how it works. -
Pretty much.ThaChozenWun wrote: »Understandable. Africa is the evolutionary birth continent. The inhabitants are closer to the origins than those that have expanded over time.
Nigerians also have higher IQs than everybody too though. -
Johann F Blumenbach tried this before
-
Nigerians also have higher IQs than everybody too though.
Incorrect. Nigerian immigrants to the US have high IQ's because the requirements for legal immigration are insane and only the best and brightest Nigerians can get in.
Nigeria itself is a strange country, because it's becoming more and more modern, but they still practice slavery. -
No....no..nooo
Nah, I figured this already, makes sense. -
The percentages are extremely close, evolution is a real thing but I'm glad to be of the race that had the first humans = )
When ? first thought of humans, he/she/it first thought of Black people. Cool story. -
KTULU IS BACK wrote: »so all that "LOL white people are related to neanderthals" hype looks silly in comparison to this
No it doesn't, because africans did not evolve from chimpanzees. I thought you knew all about evolution, bro... smh -
This declaration makes so little sense that I hesitate to mock it as if I would hesitate to criticize a small child for making a grammatical mistake, like confusing "ask" with "axe."kingblaze84 wrote: »I'm glad to be of the race that had the first humans = )
? does not exist. The idea of ? is probably humanity's worst mistake.When ? first thought of humans, he/she/it first thought of Black people. Cool story. -
Considering no one read the cited info from the first post (that includes me) I guess this whole "? made me first!" response isn't surprising.
-
No it doesn't, because africans did not evolve from chimpanzees. I thought you knew all about evolution, bro... smh
And Europeans did not evolve from Neanderthals.
Have you paid no attention to detail?
The information you black racists were celebrating was that about four percent of Europeans appear to share DNA with the extinct Neanderthal, which was basically a human with extra hair and a larger brain.
This study here shows that blacks TODAY share more genetic connections with simple chimpanzees than anyone else. -
KTULU IS BACK wrote: »And Europeans did not evolve from Neanderthals.
Have you paid no attention to detail?
The information you black racists were celebrating was that about four percent of Europeans appear to share DNA with the extinct Neanderthal, which was basically a human with extra hair and a larger brain.
This study here shows that blacks TODAY share more genetic connections with simple chimpanzees than anyone else.
...but Caucasians are recessive ascendants of Africans.... All the genes save the neanderthal gene in Caucasians are found in Africans.... therefore, Caucasians are a recessive version of the people that are closest to chimps.... You're basically making things look worse for Caucasians lol -
1. Ascendants? Are you drunker than I am?
2. Again, Neandtherthals are not sub-Human. They appear to have had all the same qualities as ? Sapiens, but with BIGGER BRAINS and more hair. A little funny looking, but just as intelligent, if not moreso.
3. Genetic recessiveness does not mean what you seem to think it means. Recessive means less likely, not inferior. A less likely gene can survive just as well, if not better, than a probable gene.
4. TODAY... I repeat... TODAY IN THIS TIME.... Africans are proven to be closer to chimps than Europeans, Asians, Samoans, Native Americans, etc.
We're not talking about pre-history. We're talking about now. Now, Africans are more chimp-like than the white man.
And it's been proven. -
KTULU IS BACK wrote: »1. Ascendants? Are you drunker than I am?
2. Again, Neandtherthals are not sub-Human. They appear to have had all the same qualities as ? Sapiens, but with BIGGER BRAINS and more hair. A little funny looking, but just as intelligent, if not moreso.
3. Genetic recessiveness does not mean what you seem to think it means. Recessive means less likely, not inferior. A less likely gene can survive just as well, if not better, than a probable gene.
4. TODAY... I repeat... TODAY IN THIS TIME.... Africans are proven to be closer to chimps than Europeans, Asians, Samoans, Native Americans, etc.
We're not talking about pre-history. We're talking about now. Now, Africans are more chimp-like than the white man.
And it's been proven.
It still makes no sense... You arguement.... Chimps and Humans have a common ancestor. Same with Neanderthals. Neanderthals however were not smarter than Homosapiens.... They became extinct because of it. Caucasians on the other hand, are homosapiens as well..... If they have Neanderthal genes it's because Homosapiens and Neanderthals in the past had interbred some how. The connection between Caucasian and Neanderthal is nothing like this genetic similarity between Human and Chimp. You're just fabricating your own ? because you're catching feelings.
In the end... again I say... So what? What is the point of this thread? Trolling? Yes, I think so.
