The statement "Large variances in human populations come from different hybrid compositions" seems a particularly provocative statement. Is there a source where this comes from?
I don't see how. Many of us have Neanderthal DNA. Objective facts are only considered (falsely) provocative if the provoked has an axe to grind, or a pursuit other than objective truth.
I definitely see how this statement is provocative when overwhelming scientific consensus underlines a very low variance in human population that is NOT explained by variance in traces of non-homo sapiens DNA.
Comments
The statement "Large variances in human populations come from different hybrid compositions" seems a particularly provocative statement. Is there a source where this comes from?
I'm not sure what part specifically you take issue with, but this provides some relevant citations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interbreeding_between_archaic_...
I don't see how. Many of us have Neanderthal DNA. Objective facts are only considered (falsely) provocative if the provoked has an axe to grind, or a pursuit other than objective truth.
I definitely see how this statement is provocative when overwhelming scientific consensus underlines a very low variance in human population that is NOT explained by variance in traces of non-homo sapiens DNA.
There are no large differences between human populations though: that is the provocative part of the statement.
You imply that it's a significant percentage though, which is highly debatable.