/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.16009089]

Is this true? Are humans the least genetically diverse species of primates?

[Anonymous No.16009127]

>>16009089

[Anonymous No.16009129]

[Anonymous No.16009131]

Yes, thanks to harsh prehistoric conditions nearly wiping out Homo sapiens but causing the extinction of all other Homo species

[Anonymous No.16009139]

>>16009089
I don't know if all primates, but one subspecies of chimps carries more diversity than the whole mankind. We are not worst off, though, there are animals that are even less diverse, like tasmanian devils, or cheetahs.

[Anonymous No.16009150]

>>16009089
no we're among the least.

[Anonymous No.16009151]

>>16009089
According to this it's about the same as chimps

[Anonymous No.16009154]

>>16009089
Without a source it's hard to critique. I have heard that, for example, Europeans and sub-saharans are about as genetically divergent as are two population of chimps in Africa that are separated by a river. The measurement by which one says this is Fst. Do note however that this river means those two populations have been separated for hundreds of thousands of years. Also note by that same measurement of Fst, Human continental populations are as or more diverse as a plethora of species that have several recognized subspecies. A commonly brought up example is actually one which are recognized as different species altogether, i.e. the Wolf and Coyote.

[Anonymous No.16010521]

idk

[Anonymous No.16010616]

>>16009154
Key difference between Humans and Canines is that Humans have actual population gradients (regional ethnicities).

If Europeans just consisted of absolute extremes e.g. Swedes while Sub-Saharan Africans just consisted of Zulus the Wolf and Coyote comparison would be plausible.

But when you factor in populations like Spanards and Greeks in Southern Europe to the Ethopians and Fulani in East and Northern West/Central Africa then it gets more hazy.

What that fixation index isn't factoring in is the sheer scale of population dynamics by regional distances. You can get a wider genetic structure simply because of the scale differences. If Sub-Sahara Africa was actually the size of Europe I suspect that value range would be smaller due to less variation by scale.

[Anonymous No.16010632]

>>16010616
Sad that the the Baltics, Findland and Western Russia got kicked out of Europe
I'm not sure how relevant your point that gradients exist matter, not least because the same is true for canines. It certainly says nothing of the existence of color for example. The example is given just to show that there is a very highly appreciable amount of genetic divergence between the races, the implications being clear. These races cluster together, though of course there is some overlap around the edges. For example in your Spanish example, a given Southern Spainard is still much more related to a Swede or German than a North Moroccan, at least by this measurement (Spainards of course are overwhelmingly descendants of European ancestral populations e.g. the WHG and Steppe invaders, not so for the Moroccans), nevermind an Ethiopian.
I'm also not sure how relevant your point is about "sheer scale" and "regional distances". All Fst does is measure genetic variation between groups, it doesn't care why that genetic variation came about.

[Anonymous No.16010635]

>>16010632
>Finland
Scandinavia*

[Anonymous No.16010655]

>>>/pol/457510189

[Anonymous No.16011073]

>>16010616
>Key difference between Humans and Canines is that Humans have actual population gradients (regional ethnicities).
>If Europeans just consisted of absolute extremes e.g. Swedes while Sub-Saharan Africans just consisted of Zulus the Wolf and Coyote comparison would be plausible.
Making excuses. Wolves and coyotes also have gradients.

[Anonymous No.16011099]

>>16010616
>gradients
>>16011073
Not that it matters anyway, it's just the old spectrum fallacy. Just because purple exists doesn't mean red and blue are the same or that you can't categorize colors.
The fact that part of the structure is due to simple distance doesn't change the reality of the structure either.

[Anonymous No.16011221]

>>16009089
Yes. The most likely reason is that humans have undergone runaway gene-culture coevolution which has repeatedly purged genetic diversity over a long time period.

[Anonymous No.16011648]

>>16009139
Each species of animal has a different genomic organization depending on how recently they've been exposed to novel selective pressures. Human genetic diversity is organized into large "blocks" of linkage disequilibrium due to genomic constraint. Whereas animals have much lower levels of linkage, generally speaking.

Basically if you think about it, so much of our genome is dedicated to our brains that any random change is morely likely to have a negative effect than a beneficial one on our brains. So this essentially causes a significant proportion of possible genetic diversity to be negatively selected on.

[Anonymous No.16011914]

>>16010616
Size isn't relevant, population intermingling is.