Say that modern humans erupting out of Africa 100,000 years ago, were merely much more numerous and racially and ethnically very distinguishable from neanderthals already living in Europe and Asia?
It seems to go without saying, only a 100,00 thousand years ago, that they were by that time, still in Africa, much darker much later than neanderthals, who had come out of Africa 500,000 years ago, not 100,000.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/ancient-dna-and-neanderthals/dna-genotypes-and-phenotypes
"THERE IS NO EVIDENCE RIGHT NOW THAT POPULATION MIXING
has been a force for (Darwinian, natural selection) adaptation....But broadly, I have no evidence that it has been essential in any way to adaptation..."
David Reich
"I would just warn against drawing inferences of what is good and bad from the type of genetic work that we do..."
Svante Paabo
Yet Reich also inferred, in this very presentation, from some hard evidence he alluded to, that neanderthals had been run to ground by their genetic inconsistencies, over tens of thousands of years, with the genomics of modern humans, whom they confronted, and with whom they also intermingled.
He even goes so far as to say something like that selection against neanderthal traits is still going on now, and will continue!
What is the difference, if any, between the meaning of 'natural selection' and 'adaption' in this context?
He even goes so far as to say something like that selection against neanderthal traits is still going on now, and will continue!
What is the difference, if any, between the meaning of 'natural selection' and 'adaption' in this context?
No comments:
Post a Comment