>>122184360>No. It was a puberty thing in the first place and still is to this day.>No. It was a puberty thing in the first place and still is to this day.
It seems you are very thick and take things too literally and focus on irrelevant details, so I'm going to be very precise on how I speak from now on so maybe even you can understand.
Mutants were those that were born with the mutations that would later on give them power. They already had the potential for those power at birth, but they would, generally, activate at puberty. Mutates instead were born normal humans but their DNA was mutated later in life.
Mutant= born with a mutation, Mutate= received a mutation later in life.
IRL they would both be called mutants, but it's comics so I'll give mutates a pass.>That's not how genes work you fucking idiot.
That's exactly how genes work.
The last common ancestor of all humans lived about 100,000 years ago, which means all genes that they had will have passed on to all humans alive today. Unless a mutation caused people to lose those genes.
If people had x-genes earlier than 100,000 years ago then all humans alive today should have them. If some humans don't have them then they must have lost them through a mutation.
But there's no need to go that far.
This explains it rather simply, even you could understand.https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/charlemagnes-dna-and-our-universal-royalty
But the gist of it is>The most recent common ancestor of every European today (except for recent immigrants to the Continent) was someone who lived in Europe in the surprisingly recent past—only about 600 years ago.
So, if there were people with x-genes 600 years ago in europe and they passed on their genes by this point all europeans should have x-genes.
And the same goes for other races.
The only way to explain why x-gene carriers are a minority is that the x-gene is recessive and humans mutated to lose the x-gene.