[–] seeker 1 points 9 points (+10|-1) ago  (edited ago)

No, the X/A ratio they calculated is not the similarity between the group and bonobos, otherwise the bonobo's value would be 1.0. I dont fully understand it bit it seems to be an in-group ratio of genetic diversity:

To approach this question in the Pan ancestor, we compared the inferred ancestral population sizes of the X chromosome and the autosomes. Because two-thirds of X chromosomes are found in females whereas autosomes are split equally between the two sexes, a ratio between their effective population sizes (X/A ratio) of 0.75 is expected under random mating.

It could be saying the mating history of africans is much closer to bonobos...

[–] chirogonemd 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Autosomes (A) are non-sex chromosomes. The X/A ratio was developed to predict sex in drosophila (fruit fly). In the simplest terms, the X/A ratio is a measure of the x-content (female linked content) as a proportion of the autosomal genome.

Every generation is expected to have a ratio of .75, which is why there is a dashed line on the chart at that value. This is because each parental generation involves XX (mother) + XY (father). So, 3/4.

Deviation from this at the population level has to do with the varied mating success of females versus males in the group. The ratio increases when women are less protected and more promiscuous, and it decreases when men protect their women but fuck around more themselves.

So you could take away a couple things from this data: that African groups are more similar in mating habits to the Bonobo than Europeans are. Bonobos are more promiscuous in general but the females in particular are loose because male bonobos are quite subordinate, whereas with chimpanzees the males are dominant.

Another thing that could be taken from this is that over time, many men were taken OUT of the African population and into other populations, and that there was more inter-race mixing happening in Europe (of the foreign male with native female variety) leading to a lower X/A ratio. This would also lead to a lower proportion of successful males in Africa versus females, so the African X/A ratio would increase proportionally.

In other words, Europeans are more genetically diverse. European males tended to protect their females to a greater extent and are less subordinate (taken as: men prevented women from being as promiscuous as they were), but there was also a propensity for European women to mate with non-European males by CHOICE. You can't prove any of this based on the data, but the data could be used to make these hypothesis and support more research. It'll be a cold day in hell before most modern researchers take this much further along these lines, however. Remember, we're all the same! /s

[–] seeker 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Thanks a lot for this clarification.

[–] Cooking_with_Alf 2 points 3 points (+5|-2) ago 

"Ancient alien theorists believe that the 'Gods' genetically modified Negroes with a combination of bonobo DNA and DNA extracted from neanderthal feces."

[–] Cat-hax 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Fuck it, I wouldn't doubt it.

[–] varialus 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

No, lol!

[–] Saufsoldat 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

No, obviously not. Why are some of you so hung up on "genetic similarity" when you don't even have any objective standard to judge it?

We have a fused chromosome that is still two chromosomes for all other apes. Only humans have this, no other apes, and that alone makes humans genetically distinct enough that any comparison between chimps and humans is ridiculous.

[–] timemage2 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

yes. and they use the debunked "out of africa" theory to explain it

[–] Saufsoldat 2 points -1 points (+1|-2) ago 

How is it debunked? What evidence do you have for human beings emergins outside of Africa?

[–] timemage2 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

[–] Rellik88 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

[–] viperguy 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

Totally debunked as of 2018 if you want a COMMON ANCESTOR and try to prove that the COMMON ANCESTOR started WITHIN africa.

Russian papers in 2018, Chinese papers in 2018, The western papers citing the dna found near israel, near a river in germany, and the new famous discovery of a bottleneck event with artifacts in a small spot in India.

If you merely want a partial semi-common hominid, pre 185,000 years ago, then its murkier but would not explain how all living africans merged with the hominid that made them what they are.

[–] PhilKDick 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

It suggests (much) more genetic commonality between bonobos and blacks than europeans, based upon fact that a lower percentage of bonobo and black males reproduce than europeans. This means that black men are less monogamous than genetically European men.

[–] pauly_pants 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

From the study itself:

The bonobo genome shows that more than 3% of the human genome is more closely related to either bonobos or chimpanzees than these are to each other. This can be used to illuminate the population history and selective events that affected the ancestor of bonobos and chimpanzees. In addition, about 25% of human genes contain parts that are more closely related to one of the two apes than the other.

[–] NoisyCricket 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

As a cross validation for genetic studies new DNA results are frequently crosschecked between humans and apes. For the geo-DNA database results there is a very high correlation between human DNA-geolocation and ape DNA-geolocation. This is especially true for Africans. The question simply becomes one of cross referenced markers.

I did not read the study but am offering that other studies do reach your conclusion that their is a high correlation between blacks and specific species of apes and their associated geo-located genetic markers. Regardless if this study provides such information, such information out there does exist.

You might try an ask and see if anyone has the information to which I refer here. It seems on some forum of board several people with a genetics background and access to these databases provided a variety of queries whereby the results high correlated specific African tribes with specific species of apes (maybe monkeys - forget). IIRC, I originally saw it reported here on Voat.

[–] SHIVASHIVASHIVA 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Europeans are caucasians who are omnivores, community builders, commodity producers, and intellectual thinkers developing alphabets used for many intellectual pursuits: subsaharan are cannibals who produce no commodities, don’t build or maintain anything, they aren’t thinkers or intellectuals and have never developed an alphabet; bonobos, I am not sure but I don’t think they eat each other, though they have a similar intellectual capacity of subsaharans and have also had no need for an alphabet, also they don’t build or maintain anything similar to subsaharans.

[–] viperguy 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

You might be trolling, but Human 5 year old BLACK AFRICANS in regions of africa with average IQs of much better than IQ 65, do not pass the self awareness mirror test.

Many animal species are self aware and pass the famous "Mirror Test" (a smudge is surreptitiously put on a cheek, and the subject observed looking at reflection investigating the smudge mark).

ALL GREAT APES ARE SELF AWARE, some black african children ARE NOT SELF AWARE! They do not even count as consciously normal human! This is in many published papers.


Asiatic elephant, dolphins, orcas, the Eurasian magpie, and ants have passed the MSR test

non great ape primates fail the MSR (mirror test), and some black africans are so unaware and animalistic that they too FAIL THE MSR TEST !!!!!

Kenyan children (N = 82, 18 to 72 months old) display a pronounced absence of spontaneous self-oriented behaviors toward the mark. http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~henrich/pdfs/Journal%20of%20Cross-Cultural%20Psychology-2010-Broesch-%20Cultural%20Variations%20in%20Children%27s%20Mirror%20Self-Recognition.pdf


[–] SHIVASHIVASHIVA 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

And we are giving subsaharrans fake degrees for smiling and posing then giving them government positions where they are cluelessly screwing up everything behind closed doors, I am not laughing.

load more comments ▼ (2 remaining)