Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 months ago, 3 minutes later, 6 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,376,854
@previous (Oatmeal Fucker !BYUc1TwJMU)
Correct. Europeans also have less genetic diversity than Africans because when Africans crossed over from Africa into Eurasia through the land bridge (used to be a land bridge before they built the Suez Canal) in Egypt, a relatively small number of individual’s descendants ended up populating the largest continent (I’m considering Eurasia as a whole a continent in this context). Generally, the further native human populations are from Africa, the less genetically diverse they are. Sub Saharan Africans have the most genetic diversity, Europeans have less than Africans, Asians have less than Europeans, and Indigenous American populations have the least genetic diversity. Genetic diversity is actually good for things like disease-resistance. Lifestyle also had an impact, but having less genetic diversity didn’t help when Europeans arrived in the Americas.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 6 months ago, 1 minute later, 7 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,376,855
Which is also why calling Africans a race is stupid. Two "black" people from Sub Saharan Africa can be more genetically distinct than a British person and a Japanese person.