Are there any groups of humans who have DNA that is vastly divergent

>>7957472
I'm not sure what you mean, there's plenty of isolated populations worldwide.

Different races are the example of divergent evolution at a starting level, it doesn't get more "vast" than this.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but if you aren't north/ sub saharan african then you're not of the purest human genes so I guess you are divergent?

>>7957472
Mutants from X-Men are not real.

Mutations happen constantly, each individual human probably has quite a few mutations in their unique DNA. Most of the time this results in no noticeable change. Sometimes it results in decreased fitness or death. Very rarely will a mutation actually create a benefit and improve fitness.

>>7957492
A mutation doesn't need to be beneficial to be passed on though.

See: Blue eyes

File: 1441480833093.png (867KB, 650x850px) Image search: [Google]

867KB, 650x850px

>>7957497
>blue eyes are considered as more attractive
>bore & better breeding partners

it's obviously beneficial

>>7957516
Maybe, but who's to say it first appeared on an "attractive" person?

File: 1384360457814.jpg (143KB, 750x1121px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 750x1121px

>>7957521
it make person more attractive, thus improving breeding chances and spreading genes responsible for blue eyes

>>7957529
Ehhh, if you don't have a pretty face your blue eyes won't do shit.

t. blue eyes

>>7957529

By your logic green eyes should be evolutionarily advantageous too, yet they are the lowest occurring eye type.

born in the lake erie region of pennsylvania. i am part native, irish, polish and welsh. my family comes from ireland, u.k., somewhere in the slovak area during wwii and pre-colonist america.

>>7957472
Sub-saharan africans

>>7957472
Look up the Basque people of Spain and France. Their genome is very particular, scientists have done plenty of studies on them for that very reason