[nobody9999]

You said:

   when modern populations are so genetically diverse.

They are not. Humans as a species (in case you're not understanding what I mean by "species," I mean all the bipedal primates generally referred to as "Homo Sapiens") are not very genetically diverse.

And I provided documentation to support that assertion.

I didn't even get into the genetic evidence that variation within human population groups is greater than the variation between such groups.

That you made some sort of assumption as to the reason for my assertion, is on you and not me.

I merely pointed out that your assertion is not supported by the genetic evidence. Full stop.

[PittleyDunkin]

I don't understand why you're using diversity in this comparative manner when I was clearly not. I was just pointing out there's a lot of genetically distinct humans and this genetic distinction follows geographic trends. It's your choice to interpret it as a comparison to other species and frankly I'm bewildered why you decided to take the conversation there.

[nobody9999]

>I don't understand why you're using diversity in this comparative manner when I was clearly not.

Clear to whom? You? I'm sure it was. To anyone else? Not so much.

I read your words "I'm not disbelieving your source entirely, but it seems a little ridiculous to assume population displacement across all pre-history (or undocumented history if you'd prefer that term). Particularly when modern populations are so genetically diverse."

And you made the claim that "modern populations are so genetically diverse." Did someone commandeer your account or force you to write that at gunpoint?

If not, it was you who referenced genetic diversity.

Or does "modern populations are so genetically diverse" mean something other than "modern populations are so genetically diverse?"

As for my response, my apologies. Clearly I did not communicate my thoughts effectively. I will attempt to do so again.

>I was just pointing out there's a lot of genetically distinct humans and this genetic distinction follows geographic trends.

And your assertion is flat wrong. In fact, modern humans have very little genetic diversity, measured any way you'd like.

What's more, the human populations with the most genetic diversity are those native to Southern and Eastern Africa.

Populations everywhere else in the world are incredibly genetically similar to each other.

So much so that the differences within geographical population groups are greater than those between such groups.

As to my references to chimpanzees and wheat, that was just to point up that humans -- regardless of geographical population -- are not genetically diverse at all.

And that's it. Humans, regardless of geographic population, are remarkably similar in genetic make up. Humans are not, as you asserted, "so genetically diverse." Exactly the opposite.

Do you understand now? If not, I obviously need to learn to write more clearly.

[PittleyDunkin]

Diversity does not imply comparison to other species. I'm still struggling to figure out how that entered the conversation. We are either diverse or not, and we are not clones, so we are diverse.

This is one of the most unpleasant conversations in recent memory. Haven't you ever heard of good faith conversation? Jesus. Absolutely rank vibes.

[nobody9999]

Humans, regardless of geographic population, are remarkably similar in genetic make up. Humans are not, as you asserted, "so genetically diverse." Exactly the opposite.