(May 10, 2013 at 6:42 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I realize what you’re saying but I think it’s in error. Many people groups would have kept progressing as others were frozen in time so to speak. According to Darwinian Theory Aboriginals should be a snap shot of what other people groups in Asia and Europe looked like thousands of years ago because the Aboriginals are essentially still living in the Stone Age. Yet, genetically and mentally there’s no significant difference between Aboriginals and say Europeans; so even though the two groups have experienced thousands of years of genetic isolation and completely different selective pressures apparently no actual Evolution has taken place. Thoughts?
Obviously there was no pressure to develop significant differences. The theory does not say there must be change. Humans have been around between 120 and 200 thousand years. For all but the last 6000 everyone was hunter-gatherer as Australoids were H-G. That is hardly time for a difference between Australoid and the rest to develop. Beyond that it is not clear what genetic differences farming might have lead to if industrialization had not replaced it.
However if you insist upon change look to the skin color of the Amerinds found only in the New World. While that is most likely due to the characteristics of a small group crossing over it could also be the skin color of all Asians of 17,000 years ago. In that case Chinese/Oriental skin color would be the change from Amerind color.
In any event the Australoid skin color is almost certainly the original out of Africa color but there is disagreement there also as with everything else.
If you want to take it further it was only between 15 and 12 thousand years ago that Australia became isolated by rising sea level at the end of the ice age. Before that there was dry land almost all the way from SE Asia to Australia. There were no great sea voyages. They walked almost all the way. So there really has not been much more isolation than for Amerinds.
Is there anything else?
