Sperm counts of Western men falling to record lows.

[null]

You said, "Neanderthal inheritance has a massive negative effect on the reproductive rate of the ENTIRE bottom-foot-hued population." -- yet the article you posted proposed that Neanderthal DNA in non-Africans may reduce reproductive success by one percent, and that this reduction affects an estimated one percent of non-Africans today. That is nowhere near massive, nor is it affecting the entire Eurasian population.

It's a statistical argument hence the may.. But it is a strong argument nonetheless (and that is what qualifies it as valid science). It is also a lower bound. As part of this argument the study makes clear that "they may have disproportionately large effects on polygenic traits that influence fitness". Which refers to combinatory effects which are hitherto unqualified, meaning that the 1% is the degree of direct genetic fitness changes but the percentage effect on actually fertility could be much greater. (see compatibility for an example below).

This disproportionate effect also comes into play when we address the question of compatibility. In other words a small direct genetic change could make a pair unable to mate (or harder for them to do so). As an analogy consider the species barrier. There is a small percentage genetic difference between humans and chimps but as humans and chimps diverged from their common ancestor a few percent of genetic deviation meant that the rate of fertility between humans and chimps was affected disproportionately and fell to zero. Again for emphasis. Few percentage points genetic difference resulted in 100% reduction of fertility. Which is why I included this article http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016...ndertals-had-trouble-making-babies-here-s-why . Now male and female 'humans' are (nominally) the same species but this article shows that Neanderthal ad-mixture led to high infertility rates because of hybridization. This isn't accounted for in the 'at least 1%'.

Please supply a screenshot of the bolded part quoted in your post above. Thanks

Re. "reproductive success". It doesn't mean that. They will (should!) only ever scientifically posit what can be proven (or indicated) intra-study or via quotes. This is not a reproductive success statistic. It's a genetic viability statistic. The fact that one does not determine the other is fleshed out in the rest of the study and is illustrated in my quotes.

As for the 'massiveness' of the rate itself see: 1. Direct genetic change is bounded BELOW by 1%. 2. It is an EXPONENTIAL function.

As for 'Eurasian' population? Are you including Asians in that? Asians are mixed with Denosovians and these discussions are about ethnicities rather than races or territories. This is a genetic grouping after all. https://phys.org/news/2016-03-world-neanderthal-denisovan-ancestry-modern.html . So saying all of that my comments are meant to refer directly to European populations and SOME of their descendants. Others are included, in that some African Americans will be affected and some Asians too as per the link in this paragraph. The 'foot bottom colour comment' was too imprecise.

Even with the plethora of genetic diseases that whites and Asians have supposedly inherited from Neanderthals, they are afflicted far less with many of the worrying ailments we see today: breast cancer, pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer, colorectal cancer, Alzheimer's disease, kidney disease, cardiovascular disease, stroke, asthma, etc. These mutations don't seem be affecting them as much as is being proclaimed, at least in terms of disease.

You keep talking about America and I am not sure why. Please explain.

Also we are talking about genetics (not lifestyle). We are talking about humans NOT Americans. The science actually says this: Europeans Less Genetically Diverse Than Africans which means Proportionally More Deleterious Genetic Variation In European than in African Populations .

"Proportionally More Deleterious Genetic Variation In European than in African Populations"

You left this part out:

You copied what I did but neglected to note that I was quoting my previous post and my assertion i.e. how the quote fits into my overarching argument was in my previous post. If you quote the article please demonstrate how it invalidates my quotes/conclusions which are drawn from the very same study. If we assume internal consistency of the study and that both sets of quotes are true and then note that your quote represents a lower bound, my argument remains intact. Yours on the other hand is confounded by the quotes that I used.

-

Geneticists are still trying to figure out what the apparent nr. absence of Neanderthal Y chromosomes in modern non-African populations actually means and ultimately why they are no longer with us. At present there are admittedly a lot of caveats and conditionals embedded in their arguments but we can conclude as I did above that fitness among European populations is lower and significantly so. Shift the rate of growth by 1% (i.e. 99% or the rate vs 100) over thousands of generations and see what happens. Human Population Calculator . And as the study states the total affect could be much greater than 1%.

 

[The Amerikkkan Idol]

I am? What the report (not study) says is ..

1. Neanderthals were massively less fertile..
2. Neanderthal descendants are less then massively fertile.
3. We don't the exact amounts but rate1 > rate2
4. But we do know that Neanderthals were impacted by negative genetic inheritance in reproduction.

Combined with the other reports and the fact that Neanderthals all but died out it suggests that the guestimates in the report could be too low re. the modern day European population.

However The Genetic Cost of Neanderthal Introgression | Genetics

"However, these positively selected genes represent a tiny fraction of Neanderthal introgression’s genetic legacy. A larger number of Neanderthal alleles appear to have deleterious fitness effects, with putative links to various diseases as measured by genome-wide association studies"

"Some previous studies concluded that this bottleneck saddled non-Africans with potentially damaging genetic variants that could affect disease incidence across the globe today"

"In our simulation with additive fitness effects, the median Neanderthal was found to have fitness 0.63 compared to the median human (Figure 1A). Assuming recessive fitness effects, the excess load accumulated by Neanderthals was even greater, with a median Neanderthal fitness of 0.39 compared to the median human"

"Although surviving Neanderthal alleles are unlikely to affect the risks of Mendelian diseases with severe effects, they may have disproportionately large effects on polygenic traits that influence fitness"

"We estimated earlier that Neanderthals were ∼60% as fit as humans, assuming that deleterious mutations have additive fitness effects"

"We do not claim to have precisely estimated the deleterious Neanderthal load that remains in non-Africans today"

"Association methods have already revealed correlations between Neanderthal alleles and several human diseases (Sankararaman et al. 2014). Our results on mutations with additive dominance effects suggest that introgression reduced non-African fitness about as much as the out-of-Africa bottleneck did."

AND the 400K years is far too short IMO.

What THIS study therefore establishes is that there is genetic deficit built into gringo populations and the effect could be far greater than the 1% quoted by the Daily Mail. It is also establishes that gringo populations are less fit (which affects many things other than reproduction) due to the migration bottleneck.

--

And then we have the question of compatibility http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016...ndertals-had-trouble-making-babies-here-s-why

So do you acknowledge pollution, obesity, and stress can adversely affect Black people's fertility, yes or no?

 

[null]

So do you acknowledge pollution, obesity, and stress can adversely affect Black people's fertility, yes or no?

Sorry, but I am not going to edify that stupidity with a sensible response.
Apologies but I just can't bring myself to stoop that low.
Here is a question for you.. Did you finish school?

NB. I'll make an effort, if you embellish your question with an assertion and/or implication or two. Maybe that will draw your attention to the inanity of what you posted. Promise...

 

[The Amerikkkan Idol]

Sorry, but I am not going to edify that stupidity with a sensible response.
Apologies but I just can't bring myself to stoop that low.
Here is a question for you.. Did you finish school?

NB. I'll make an effort, if you embellish your question with an assertion and/or implication or two. Maybe that will draw your attention to the inanity of what you posted. Promise...

Ugh, now I see why your reputation is so low

 

[null]

Ugh, now I see why your reputation is so low

That's a compliment coming from you.
Thanks

 

[International Playa]

Peep the wording

"Western males" = Cac males