Slashdot Mirror
Tibetans Inherited High-Altitude Gene From Ancient Human
sciencehabit writes A "superathlete" gene that helps Sherpas and other Tibetans breathe easy at high altitudes was inherited from an ancient species of human. That's the conclusion of a new study, which finds that the gene variant came from people known as Denisovans, who went extinct soon after they mated with the ancestors of Europeans and Asians about 40,000 years ago. This is the first time a version of a gene acquired from interbreeding with another type of human has been shown to help modern humans adapt to their environment.
This is the first time a version of a gene acquired from interbreeding with another type of human has been shown to help modern humans adapt to their environment.
I'd have to say the genes for red hair were pretty damn helpful in making some of our women really attractive.
The explanation of the evolution is terrible. If the gene was inherited from a "Denisovans" then that Denisovan didn't go extinct. His descendents are still among us. The gene did not spread through the population; the people who had the gene survived and people without the gene disappeared leaving more space for those survivors.
There is another obvious point in history where such a gene transfer could have occurred. European conditions favour light skin, and Neandertals had been hanging out there for some tens of thousands of years before modern humans turned up and so had evolved light skin. These newcomers, having recent ancestry in Africa, were probably dark skinned. Interbreeding could easily have introduced the beneficial-to-European-conditions light skin mutations into the modern population.
My memory of the literature (which I have followed just a little bit, not closely) is that this did not happen - genetic analysis shows that modern Europeans and Neandertals acquired light skin through different mutations. However, Wikipedia says this is still under debate.
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
Look, every time I come here, someone says "fuck beta." I figure it's the best shot I have.
I'd add a "fourth step": understand that different women want different things - that women will typically decide whether to wear their good underwear (i.e. brand new Victoria's Secret lace versus worn out cotton granny panties) before they even go on the date with you - that they''ve already decided the "outcome" of the date before they've even spent time with you.
Some women, because of who they are, want a long hard night in the bedroom and as long as you come across as reasonably nice and not totally psycho then you're in. Other women, again because of who they are, just don't happen to want that and no matter how smooth you are you're not going to get anywhere. In short, it's not about you - it's about them. It's not about how great you are - whether you're "alpha" or whatever. It's about getting to know lots of different women until you eventually find one who wants the same thing you do.
And, yes, if what you want is mainly time in the bedrrom there are women who want that, too. But you mama may not approve of such women. So you may have to choose between making your mama happy and making yourself happy.
Anyway, there isn't some single perfect woman that all the men in the world are competing for - by trying to be more "alpha" or whatever. There's lots of different women in the world (billions, in fact) and the key is to find a woman that's a good match for you.
First of all, a preferable term for "human females" is "women". Or, better still, "people". If you wan't to have a relationship with someone -- even if it's a purely physical relationship -- you're better off by not referring to them by species and gender as though you were an entomologist and they were some exotic variety of insect. Men are people. Women are people. And people have minds, souls, desires, and complexities.
Some people (of either gender) are primarily interested in physical relationships at this point in their lives, and some aren't. Some people are swayed by PUA strategies like negging, and some aren't. Most people, I would guess, want a sexual or romantic partner that they find physically attractive and enjoyable to be with... but those are highly variable qualities. You'd be amazed at what some people do and don't find attractive, when you scratch the surface. For example, sometimes a very wealthy and physically attractive person can immediately turn off a potential partner forever just by having a bitter personality or prejudiced attitudes.
If you're one of those people who's on a low end of the bell-shaped curve of attractiveness when it comes to looks, or height, or chest size, or hair, or wealth, or whatever it is you think would make you attractive to the people you'd like to date or sleep with... yeah, that sucks. I feel for you. Most of us have been there. 50% of the population is below-average by definition, and most of us are not media stars.
But your first step out of that hole is to stop thinking about how to become an "alpha" (whatever the heck you think that is) or lamenting that you aren't one. If you seriously want things to change, you have to find ways to relate to people honestly, regardless of their gender. You have to stop thinking of other people as your competitors or enemies -- especially if those people are ones you want to be in a relationship with.
Because those ugly thoughts will come out eventually. People have spent hundreds of thousands of years evolving finely-honed unconscious detectors for creepy behavior. And you don't want to be That Guy. Nobody likes That Guy.
Koans and fables for the software engineer