People of Sub Saharan origin have up to 20% DNA mixture of an sub species of ancient human. That same dna of sub species is not present among Asians & Caucasians.
It?s always wise to fact check every claim made by a troll so I put yours through Chat GPT (which also provides sources for its claims which you can access by asking it yourself) and this is what it says:
???????-
Broadly plausible, but the wording is too definite.
A 2020 study of four West African populations estimated that about 2?19% of their genetic ancestry could be derived from an archaic population that diverged from the lineage leading to modern humans before the Neanderthal?modern-human split.
However, this is not the same as saying that Sub-Saharan Africans generally have 20% DNA from an identified ancient human ?subspecies.?
The researchers were looking for what is often called ?ghost archaic? ancestry. No genome from the supposed source population has been recovered, so we don?t actually know exactly what human group contributed the DNA. The 2?19% figure is also an estimate produced by a particular demographic model, rather than a directly measured percentage.
So:
Some West African populations may have substantial ancestry from an unidentified archaic human population, with one study estimating 2?19%.
That is a reasonable statement.
2. ?That same DNA is not present among Asians & Caucasians?
This is false.
Asians and Europeans have well-established archaic ancestry, particularly from Neanderthals. Most non-African populations have roughly 1?4% Neanderthal ancestry.
Some Asian and Oceanian populations also have Denisovan ancestry. For example, Papuan populations have several percent Denisovan ancestry, with estimates around 4% in some studies.
More importantly, the statement implies that Africans have this particular archaic DNA while Europeans and Asians have none. That?s not established. The African ?ghost? ancestry appears to come from a population different from the Neanderthal and Denisovan groups for which we have genomes. Its exact identity remains unknown.
There?s also evidence of small amounts of Neanderthal ancestry in African populations, probably resulting partly from later gene flow back into Africa from populations carrying Neanderthal ancestry. One large genomic study estimated about 0.18% Neanderthal ancestry in Yoruba, for example.
So the original statement takes a genuine and fascinating finding about African genetic history and turns it into a much stronger claim than the evidence supports.
One other correction: ?subspecies of ancient human? isn?t really appropriate terminology here. Scientists generally refer to these as archaic hominins or archaic populations. We don?t know enough about the unidentified African population to classify it as a particular human subspecies.
Verdict: ⚠️ Misleading.
The 2?19% figure has a genuine scientific basis, but it applies to estimates for certain West African populations and an unidentified archaic population. The assertion that the same DNA is absent from Asians and Europeans is not supported?and Asians and Europeans themselves have substantial, well-established Neanderthal/Denisovan ancestry.
???????
Based on your own posts I would have said you were around 50% Neanderthal however anthropologists now believe they were actually quite clever and gentle beings and were most likely wiped out by their more aggressive and thuggish cousins Homo Sapiens so I?d say you?re almost certainly 99% a sapien ape.
