this post was submitted on 29 Nov 2024
122 points (98.4% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35961 readers
980 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jol@discuss.tchncs.de 86 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

My assumption: like with any territorial animal, to avoid competing with other tribes over resources. And apart from the very very cold places like Greenland, most cold places actually are abundant in food when spring comes, which would be the time tribes would venture further north in cold climates.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 45 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yep.

And it's not like someone went from Africa to Greenland on a walkabout.

It took generations for that kind of migration, some people decided they went far enough and stopped. But at every stop, the ones who could handle colder would expand North/South where there's less competition.

They were repeatedly being selected for the people who could handle a slightly colder environment, so by the time the population reached the polar regions, all that was left was people with traits to handle the cold. Any remotely beneficial recessive gene would quickly replace dominant alleles in the population.

People think of evolution as spontaneous mutations, but really it's just the concentration of recessive genes that have been around basically forever

[–] Sludgehammer@lemmy.world 23 points 2 days ago (1 children)

They were repeatedly being selected for the people who could handle a slightly colder environment, so by the time the population reached the polar regions, all that was left was people with traits to handle the cold. Any remotely beneficial recessive gene would quickly replace dominant alleles in the population.

Although I'm sure there was some genetic adaptation, I'd argue it was more technological advancement. The northernmost tribe discovers a better make of clothing, or a better housing structure and suddenly the colder winters farther north are now tolerable so people settle there. The new northern tribe refines their technology and knowledge and now that they know how to... ice fish or something they have a winter food source, and now their descendants can settle even farther north.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 14 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Although I’m sure there was some genetic adaptation

It wasn't so much spontaneous adaption...

There's more genetic diversity inside of Africa than outside of it combined.

Very very few mutations have occured outside of Africa. Blue eyes is one of the few examples, but that was a perfect storm of something just breaking (what made pigment in the eye), allowing for greater nonverbal communication (pupil dilation became more obvious), and being very very obvious no matter how much clothes you were bundled up with.

It's just Africa is so fucking diverse, that it's rare for populations to become truly isolated and for the same certain recessive genes to become the most popular variation within a fixed population. It's mostly just things like sickle cell that provides a benefit against a common cause of death even when recessive and only one copy is present. It's been a minute, but I think when one copy is the most beneficial is the fastest way to get rid of the dominant for some reason I can't recall.

So I wasn't talking about tribes mutating on the march North.

I meant the people who would expand north were more likely to have the recessive traits, mate with others, and consolidate them.

Besides, neanderthals had better tech then we did. The advantage was our faster reproduction cycle which allowed not just for greater numbers, but faster concentration of beneficial recessive traits to suit changing environments.

So like...

We have a real example that tech was second place to biology. This ain't a hypothetical. You're right tech played a part, just a smaller part.

[–] Jimmycrackcrack@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago

I'm curious about the "better tech than us" claim. Can you give some more detail and context to this?