@xRedx I'm really not sure what you're trying to say here. You seem to be claiming that human genetic diversity is extremely low, but in fact it's classed as moderate compared to all other known species (if there were an inter-species genetic diversity score, we'd be around the 45% level).
Humans differ on average by about one in a thousand base pairs. Given that we each have 3.2 billion base pairs, that's a huge number... much less than fruit flies [i]Drosophila pseudoobscura,[/i] a little less than chimpanzees, but massively higher than European mice.
You said "A lack of genetic diversity means there is no evolution taking place"
Umm, perhaps we could discuss that claim... because it's nonsensical, and I'd be more than happy to show you [i]why[/i] it's nonsensical
@xRedx Evolution doesn't mean immortality, extinction is actually caused by natural events and also climate change. All low diversity means is that the species can go extinct, that doesn't negate evolution. The species will [b]bounce back[/b] if there's an accumulation of mutations over many generations.
Who said he did? I find no connections. You see what you want to see, doesn’t mean its right.. no macro evolution events have ever been witnessed, so it’s just some asshole deciding 1 creature evolved from another because they look simular
@Deadcutie and as I do not ignore... in fact, as I emphasise... these are simply distinctions of convenience, distinctions without a difference, and refer to [b]the same process[/b].
