New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
Sign up
posted 1 month ago by GoldenInnosStatue on scored.co (+0 / -0 / +9Score on mirror )
You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
Niemo on scored.co
1 month ago 2 points (+0 / -0 / +2Score on mirror ) 2 children
That's not true tho, its not as if you don't hold DNA from people that far ago, its that there is less and less monopoly over a larger part of your genome per ancestor. But every single strand of DNA you have is inherited from that long ago, the dominant selected genes passed down like a baton through the ages.

So you might not get much per individual, but what you do have is a direct line down through the ages.
HarlechMan on scored.co
1 month ago 4 points (+0 / -0 / +4Score on mirror )
Yes this is what people forget when they bring up the generational "drift". If you are reproducing within your own people, then the older and even ancient parts of the genome are passed down. It is why a White parent who race mixes and produces a non-white child is actually more "related" to a random White person on the street, than to their own offspring.

There are various studies out there that suggest the "ideal" pairings are somewhere around the third or fourth cousin level. Which is basically what you would get in a traditionally sized community or small city.
zk3hf9dB on scored.co
1 month ago 0 points (+0 / -0 )
Did you read the later part of my point?

That was the video's point too. Even though you aren't very related to a distant relative, as long as there is some degree of "inbreeding" then you all share genes anyway.
Toast message