Is the majority of mixed-race risk factor for mental illness a result of genetics or the environment?

submitted by SoylentCapitalist from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]SoylentCapitalist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Well over 100,000 years? What? They barely settled Scandinavia 12,000 years ago.

People started settling in Scandinavia and calling it home soon after the region emerged out of the icy grip of the last ice age around 12,000 years ago. Archaeological finds show that people lived in the area 11,700 years ago.

https://sciencenordic.com/archaeology-forskningno-society--culture/first-scandinavians-came-from-north-and-south/1453083#:~:text=People%20started%20settling%20in%20Scandinavia,where%20they%20had%20come%20from.

[–]Fitter_HappierWhite Nationalist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Groups didn't interbreed for >100,000 years. Once a group set off from Africa they never looked back. The didn't just hop to Sweden, they slowly migrated but were on a separate evolutionary path with all the difference selective pressures that the North presents vs. African jungles and savannas.

[–]SoylentCapitalist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Humans didn't even leave Africa until 50,000 years ago. It's insane to think they've been isolated for "well over 100,000" years.

The recent African origin paradigm suggests that the anatomically modern humans outside of Africa descend from a population of Homo sapiens migrating from East Africa roughly 70–50,000 years ago and spreading along the southern coast of Asia and to Oceania by about 50,000 years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_human_migrations#:~:text=The%20recent%20African%20origin%20paradigm,by%20about%2050%2C000%20years%20ago.

On that account, they wouldn't even be considered Swedes or white for that matter until much later after they migrated out of Africa.

Swede and a Bantu? Groups that have evolved completely isolated for well over 100,000 years?

[–]Fitter_HappierWhite Nationalist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

It's insane to think they've been isolated for "well over 100,000" years.

Yeah, you'd know better than Nature, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_(journal)#Landmark_papers.

You don't understand what I'm saying: one group starts walking north, they don't stop until they arrive in the arctic circle 100,000 years later with no interaction with the other. You only have to move out of breeding distance to speciate.

[–]SoylentCapitalist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

You don't understand what I'm saying: one group starts walking north, they don't stop until they arrive in the arctic circle 100,000 years later with no interaction with the other. You only have to move out of breeding distance to speciate.

Ironic. Read my comment again, half way to the arctic circle they aren't yet a Swede. They are still genetically similar. You're including the time they aren't even a Swede into being separated for 100,000 years. They didn't even have fair skin among other features to be considered a Swede while migrating, to put it in a better way. And, once again, they didn't even leave Africa until 50,000 to 70,000 years ago as my source told you.

Swede and a Bantu? Groups that have evolved completely isolated for well over 100,000 years?

See now how the 'Swede' himself hasn't been completely isolated for that long?

[–]Fitter_HappierWhite Nationalist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

half way to the arctic circle they aren't yet a Swede.

You're just playing stupid semantics. Any child would understand what I'm saying, but apparently it's beyond you. I'm done.

[–]SoylentCapitalist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The recent African origin paradigm suggests that the anatomically modern humans outside of Africa descend from a population of Homo sapiens migrating from East Africa roughly 70–50,000 years ago and spreading along the southern coast of Asia and to Oceania by about 50,000 years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_human_migrations#:~:text=The%20recent%20African%20origin%20paradigm,by%20about%2050%2C000%20years%20ago.

Nice dodging though, lol

[–]Fitter_HappierWhite Nationalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Are you retarded? Let me spell this out, I'll type slowly. 100,000 years ago Group A says "fuck you niggers, we're out of here" and moves 100 miles north. Group B hangs around where it was. Group A keeps moving slowly north, never interacting with Group B again, ever. After say 30,000 years of slowly migrating to North Africa they finally leave Africa. That is 100% consistent with "a population of Homo sapiens migrating from East Africa roughly 70–50,000 years ago and spreading along the southern coast of Asia and to Oceania by about 50,000 years ago."

Now, as they slowly move North random mutations occur, some help them survive better in the North, those have a reproductive advantage and become the norm. Those mutations that don't help them survive in the North disappear. etc.

[–]SoylentCapitalist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

100,000 years ago Group A says "fuck you niggers, we're out of here" and moves 100 miles north. Group B hangs around where it was. Group A keeps moving slowly north, never interacting with Group B again, ever. After say 30,000 years of slowly migrating to North Africa they finally leave Africa. That is 100% consistent with "a population of Homo sapiens migrating from East Africa roughly 70–50,000 years ago and spreading along the southern coast of Asia and to Oceania by about 50,000 years ago."

Group A and B are both Africans within that 30,000 year span, how exactly are the Swede and Bantu isolated for well over 100,000 years genius? It isn't just semantics, it's logic. If you call the North Africans a Swede it is meaningless that they've already begun the journey because they are in the relatively same environment.

[–]Fitter_HappierWhite Nationalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They are all intermediate species. Just like man didn't split from chimpanzees, we both split from a common ancestor, similarly Bantu and Swedes split from a common ancestor then slowly changed into what they are today, although I'm sure that Bantu didn't change nearly as much as the Swede because there were no changes in their environment as selective pressure.