Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Think of the genetic wealth and KO potential of a low cardio version of boxing!?

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    Originally posted by AlexKid View Post
    Interesting fact.

    White people have neanderthal DNA. We are part neanderthal.

    Black people don't.

    It is pretty obvious when you think about it. Neanderthals were a species of human that lived in Europe. Only those **** sapiens who left Africa got a chance to cross breed with Neanderthals.

    I think it is funny when people try to imply that black people are not as evolved as us white people, when us white people are legitimately part cave man.

    It is also interesting to note that Aboriginal Australians are part Denisovan.

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by Lomasexual View Post
      Interesting fact.

      White people have neanderthal DNA. We are part neanderthal.

      Black people don't.

      It is pretty obvious when you think about it. Neanderthals were a species of human that lived in Europe. Only those **** sapiens who left Africa got a chance to cross breed with Neanderthals.

      I think it is funny when people try to imply that black people are not as evolved as us white people, when us white people are legitimately part cave man.

      It is also interesting to note that Aboriginal Australians are part Denisovan.
      Asians mixed with both Neanderthal and Denisovan I believe.

      But we are like all mostly pure African , Im not sure how much such diluted genes affect people, can they still have an effect are some genes just always affecting biology "no matter how diluted" they get?


      I wonder how much ancestry matters.

      Obviously its not like paint but even so ud expect next to 0 influence by those genes
      Last edited by AlexKid; 02-21-2020, 07:15 PM.

      Comment


      • #13
        https://www.the-scientist.com/featur...t-silent-66299

        So some genes stay dominant till they get as low as 2% or less?

        Comment


        • #14
          Fantastic we are more likely to be depressed
          Last edited by AlexKid; 02-21-2020, 07:31 PM.

          Comment


          • #15
            to motivate it to withdraw from the source of damage, and to learn to avoid such damage-causing circumstances in the future. Sadness is also distressing, yet is widely believed to be an evolved adaptation. In fact, perhaps the most influential evolutionary view is that most cases of depression are simply particularly intense cases of sadness in response to adversity, such as the loss of a loved one.


            So basically depression is a way of protecting ourselves and the ones we love, in the same way as pain avoidance with physical pain just a little different.

            Maybe we relied more on each other? In a cold bleak environment?

            We maybe needed to be punished more for fcuking up and losing a relative?
            Last edited by AlexKid; 02-21-2020, 07:46 PM.

            Comment


            • #16
              I bet there was less of them and so its more important to have your relatives live, hence the higher depression avoidance punishment.

              I also bet it was a bigger blow to your group to have one less, with lower numbers, in a new cold bleak environment

              I have a neanderthal looking after me
              Last edited by AlexKid; 02-21-2020, 07:53 PM.

              Comment

              Working...
              X
              TOP