Is Varg correct that we're more closely related to Neanderthals

>>8674021

Does Varg have a degree, published paper or credentials in a relevant field for that claim?

>>8674047
No, so I thought I'd ask a forum of people who might.

>>8674021
Yes

Stop shilling for the out of Africa theory; we are not albinos

>>8674047
No but he provides sources. Do you really think a degree is necessary to make a scientific claim?

>>8674077
>implying anyone looked like a subsaharan african when migration began
do people think primevil tribes of the missing link flourished in Italy?

>>8674080

No I don't but I think it's needed to make a credible or relevant claim in a specific field of study. I don't see why I should bother with opinions of non experts.

>>8674191
Because having a degree doesn't make you correct, and not having one doesn't make you incorrect.
I understand being wary of people that have no formal qualifications, but you should evaluate the evidence presented, instead of the person that said it.

>>8674021

We have maybe 1 to 5% neanderthal dna, we're overwhelmingly more like Africans than we are like neanderthals. Also, when I say "we", I mean all non-Africans: Asians also have the same level of neanderthal dna as Europeans do.

>>8674252
Such a ridiculous claim would require original research, since I already know there are no scientific sources saying this. More likely it's just some idiot grossly misrepresenting sources to justify his silly beliefs.

It is feasible that at a particular point in time in the past humans outside of Africa were more related to Neanderthals.

But today (and probably for the past several thousand years) we are certainly more related to sub-saharan Africans now.

Mind you this should end the debate but I also know I'm possibly dealing with /pol/ anons.

>>8674271
I do share some of my analysis with pol but I want to fact check it.

>>8674262
Is that as a percent of our total DNA, or of DNA unique to humans?

>>8674021
Just considering the logistical challenges of migration in a pre-wheel society I'd say this should be the assumption, not the wild theory. Where did we suddenly get enough Neanderthal DNA to make any claims based on DNA one way or the other?

>>8674021

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100506141555.htm

>Complete Neanderthal genome sequenced: DNA signatures found in present-day Europeans and Asians, but not in Africans

>An analysis of the genetic variation showed that Neanderthal DNA is 99.7 percent identical to present-day human DNA

so it seems that Europeans and Asians are more closely related to Neanderthals than Africans are, but Europeans and Asians are more closely related to Africans than to Neanderthals.

or, in other words - Asians and Europeans interbred with Neanderthals, but Africans did not.

>>8674322
>Is that as a percent of our total DNA, or of DNA unique to humans?

There is no dna unique to humans.

File: varg.jpg (114KB, 762x464px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 762x464px

>>8674021
Yes
Also, the Sumerians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks and Romans were all as white as the Germans and Vikings were.