A guy once told me there are villages in Africa where one person could be genetically closer to a European than another person from the same village. Is this true? Does this mean that Africans are a paraphyletic group?
One of the many claims I see a lot in evolutionary debates is that the concept of Adam and Eve as the sole ancestors of the human race is genetically impossible. That there is too much genetic diversity in the human race for it to be the result of one mating pair. I've seen numbers like the minimum being 1,000 mating pair or the like. But I rarely see any links to research papers or articles on how those conclusions were reached. So I would appreciate it if someone can provide me with such sources.
Thanks!
Adam and Eve were created about 6000 years ago. About 1500 years later Noah had three sons. Noah, his wife, his sons and his sons wives were the only people on earth during the flood. This means that the whole human population descended from just these 8 people about 4500 years ago. How did we get all the diversity we see today from just those 8 individuals a few thousand years ago? People have a different skin color, a different hair color, a different eye color, different body shapes and so on. All different ethnicities and you can clearly distinguish them.
If two Arabs have children, their children will also be Arabs and they will look like their parents. If two Han Chinese have children, their children will also be Han Chinese and will look like their parents. This also holds for any other ethnicity. If people started with the same origin, how do they look so different now?
Hey all,
My parents have recently moved into neglected forest acre and have really got onboard with native plant restoration, invasive species removal.
I've bought plants from a native plant nursery within the region which has plants collected from the immediate area, so there's extremely "local" genetics to the region and is good for the restoration project.
We're on Vancouver Island which is slowly speciating away from the mainland. For instance, we have our own forms of Trillium Ovatum, Sea Wolves, Dodecatheon, etc.
My mum tends to buy from non-native garden shops in their native plant sections. However, most of these plants like Sword ferns, Salal etc are procured from Oregon or other farms in the USA. They're technically "native" but have different genetics being from a different region.
If these are planted, they would hybridise by the local varities in the forest surrounding the house. My question is, would this, in a least some sort of way be harmful for the native plants by reducing genetic diversity by introducing native plants from a different region?
I realise this is a super niche question and a purist approach but I'm wanting to understand before she plants them all in the forest.
At best, I'm a hobbyist and not an ecologist so any answers would be well-appreciated :)
Preparing to receive my first meat rabbits and realized I don't know anything about breeding in relation to ensuring genetic diversity. Will two does and two bucks be enough? Is there a chart or formula of some kind that can be followed? Is this even important to consider?
The resulting litters are going to be around for a while and some will be sold as pets.
Say, if a colony were to be established on another planet, with no expectation for a second influx any time soon. How many original colonists would it take for inbreeding to never become an issue down the line?
I’ve heard many many times that the explanation of how a group of animals spread to another continent and split from the parent group was by rafting on debris after a storm, but granted that there’s at least two individuals and both are of opposite sex, how do they over come the extreme genetic bottle neck that creates? Do we see those bottle necks in their dna like we can with cheetahs.
