Oh so I'm glad we also cleared up your Nordic reference. as the origin of white euro culture. Whoa. I am very familiar with dominant and recessive gene expressions. Just as I thought. Its all about physical appearance not genetic expression. Nothing like throwback racialism.
It makes sense that, given the environment of Europe, those genetic traits were adaptations that were developed over a long period of time. Then you understand why the traits I am speaking of are under threat. Well, what do you call this guy? Does he look like a white man, to you? The answer should be no. Just because he is in Italy doesn't make him genetically European. Eventually enough mixing with the rest of the world takes place and those European characteristics are not visible any longer, since they are recessive.
If you knew what you think you know you would know that some black people have blue eyes and naturally blonde hair. Black people are the most diverse people of all of the "races".
this is a lie. blue eyes and green eyes are purely a random mutation that took place around 13,000 years ago. all blue eyed and green eyed people are descended from the same person. and the fact is, blue eyes and green eyes is found in Europe AND the Middle East and North Africa. and no, it is NOT an "adaptation". Its purely a mutation, random and lovely.
more nonsense, as many Asians have very light skin and therefore can naturally produce lots of Vitamin D
first of all, the concept of "continents" is simply a social construct. secondly, anyone familiar with the Earth's land masses can clearly see that what we call "Europe" is simply just a small peninsula stretching west off of the much larger Asian continent. so if anything, Europe is nothing but a mere sub-continent of Asia. or we can just call it Eurasia.
You're no brother of mine. In fact, you have my permission to address me as "N***er", "Jooboy" or "Untermensch", if any of those strikes your fancy. You're welcome. Congratulations on getting something right by dumb luck - though of course it doesn't have a damn thing to do with the premise. I'm not nearly retarded enough to give a diddly damn what you think I'm supposed to do, thanks anyway.
Yes, some have mixed genes allowing for rare recessive traits to present themselves. Some have denisovan DNA (Australoids) that allow for these recessive traits to rarely present themselves. So what? The ones who have this are not 100% Homo sapiens like most blacks are.
We have Europe and Asia, kind of like we have North America and South America. Just another attempt at lumping in disparate groups together as part of the "we are the world" campaign.
I just think you can't tell them apart. Why would you find this fact pertinent? Admittedly I read to much into your "chimpanzee" statement.
Total BS pseudoscience pushed by this guy, David Reich. Gee, I wonder what his ethnicity is? Blue eyes are a recessive trait. It couldn't have started in a "random mutation" (they argue in a single person) because that mutation would have almost certainly been wiped out within a couple generations of breeding with brown eyed people, who have dominant genes.
Ok, what does this have to do with my point about eskimoes? But thanks for agreeing with my point about light skin being better for producing vitamin D
Name calling is more your speed, though I understand how limited you are in this, and other, discussions. Oh, then how retarded?
Small differences in DNA can matter a lot. We know this because even though we have 99% of our DNA shared with chimps, we are very different animals, and are capable of much greater things than they are.