Jophiel wrote:
shintasama wrote:
Quote:
For example, because they have existed much longer in human evolutionary history, Africans have more mutations in their genomes than other races.
or you know, it could be because they spend more time less protected from radiation than people bundled up in houses/castles/etc in colder regions and therefore accumulate more mutations. People that live near radioactive materials also have much higher incidences of SNP, it doesn't mean crap about lineage.
The bit about the mutations doesn't really seem to be in question. Or, at least, it's accepted in several other unrelated studies and articles.
The two you listed didn't work on just volume of mutations, you can't tell **** from just looking at volume. They looked at placement, prevalence, and migration of specific mutations like they should have:
National Geographic wrote:
By analyzing specific regions of the DNA, comparing the results to known reference sequences, and identifying differences that are anthropologically significant, geneticists are able to track mutations. [...] Archaeology had suggested this, of course. But what the geneticists saw from their DNA sequencing of current-day Africans is that their ancestors appeared to have lived as the only humans on Earth as recently as 60,000 years ago. That was when they started migrating, taking their genetic mutations with them, and passing them down.
1) Mutations aren't inherently good or bad, and most of them do absolutely nothing.
2) Humans didn't start out in some perfect state then slowly mutate away from it.
3) Not migrating from one region to another doesn't make populations DNA "older"
4) Via evolution populations tend to pass on characteristics that benefit the region/situation they're in, this does not make one region "more attractive" or "better" than another, just specialized for what they need.
5) Social factors play massive rolls that are being completely ignored
The science is bad.
