I caught most of a report on albinism of CGTNN. It showed several women in Africa and their movement to get rights and respect. As I watched I was struct by how pretty these women really were. Different and a bit strange for sure but mostly what I will call exotic especially with their blond hair. I could not help but notice just how close the facial features of these African (negro) women were to most caucasion women. I think with the right make-up they would pass for “white” almost anywhere.
I had always been skeptical about the idea that all humans originated in Africa. Seeing these women hit me with the realization that white, brown and yellow skin and other features are truly genetic. The evidence was right there on my TV. As best as I can figure out, there must be differences other than skin color that come with differences in pigmentation. In other words, the difference in the gene which impacts color carries with it differences in other physical features such as hair type and color and some facial features. I expect that mating among people of similar color and features would account for the stable populations we see today.
This understanding of an actual mechanism for development of different peoples would be interesting in and of itself, but I had also recently seen a report on CRISPR. We all have probably seen and heard about “designer babies”. The CRISPR technology seems to be the realization of designer humans. My expectation is that in the future gene editing will not be limited to embryos. If the technology is developed I expect gene editing in adults will be more in demand than we might imagine. Who doesn’t have something that they might want changed if it could be done safely and inexpensively? And then what of evolution?
Who doesn’t have something that they might want changed if it could be done safely and inexpensively?
Done safely is a big one. There are more things that can go wrong than we even recognize, so there will be setbacks, followed by advances, and it'll probably still not reach pie in the sky.
And then what of evolution?
What of evolution? CRISPR is only mimicking an evolution process. People became agents of evolution long long ago.
So my prediction, same as it ever was, only different.
... As best as I can figure out, there must be differences other than skin color that come with differences in pigmentation...
Bob, this brings to mind the taming of silver-black foxes by a Soviet researcher. He selected out foxes for breeding based on their tendencies to approach or avoid humans. The more tame their characteristics, the more likely they would be selected to breed for the next generation. The other foxes became fur coats.
After just a few generations, they had foxes that were pet-like. But the thing about this experiment that came to mind from your story, is that the foxes began to change morphologically. For one thing the color of their coats became quite variable.
The point is, that remarkable changes can occur morphologically within a species (including external color) simply by breeding for (in this case) tameness.
I caught most of a report on albinism of CGTNN. It showed several women in Africa and their movement to get rights and respect. As I watched I was struct by how pretty these women really were. Different and a bit strange for sure but mostly what I will call exotic especially with their blond hair. I could not help but notice just how close the facial features of these African (negro) women were to most caucasion women. I think with the right make-up they would pass for “white” almost anywhere.
That’s an unusual take. If anything, their lack of pigment emphasizes their African facial features.
I had always been skeptical about the idea that all humans originated in Africa. Seeing these women hit me with the realization that white, brown and yellow skin and other features are truly genetic. The evidence was right there on my TV. As best as I can figure out, there must be differences other than skin color that come with differences in pigmentation. In other words, the difference in the gene which impacts color carries with it differences in other physical features such as hair type and color and some facial features. I expect that mating among people of similar color and features would account for the stable populations we see today.
Where you been Bob? We’ve known genes are responsible for our features for a long time.
As for all humans originating in Africa, that is partly correct. Early modern humans spread out from Africa and encountered other prehistoric humans and bred with them to some degree.
This understanding of an actual mechanism for development of different peoples would be interesting in and of itself, but I had also recently seen a report on CRISPR. We all have probably seen and heard about “designer babies”. The CRISPR technology seems to be the realization of designer humans. My expectation is that in the future gene editing will not be limited to embryos. If the technology is developed I expect gene editing in adults will be more in demand than we might imagine. Who doesn’t have something that they might want changed if it could be done safely and inexpensively? And then what of evolution?
I had always been skeptical about the idea that all humans originated in Africa.
You thought we popped up in different places on the planet by magic and those of us who mate with someone of a different skin colour are worst committing beastiality (though babies between a human and bonobo is not possible) and at best it be like a chimp and a bonobo mating?
As best as I can figure out, there must be differences other than skin color that come with differences in pigmentation…
Yes, there are. Black people can get Sickle Cell Anemia, but unless a white person has Black ancestry on both sides of their family tree, it’s more difficult to find a white person with Sickle Cell- not impossible though. Hair is slightly different, but really pigmentation isn’t actually different. You ask “How so?” Well, I have two sons- one took after his dad concerning complexion and the other leans towards me. It’s basically a case of more melanin, which is in part genetic and also how much sun one gets. If you are white, you go out and spend time in the sun, you get darker because more melanin builds up to as protection. That’s not 100% protection from cancer though- it’s none at all really. While most people don’t think Black people can get sunburns, they really can. Genetics is what gives you your every day pigmentation and within families this can vary greatly as I mentioned concerning my family, but we are all still human. The same goes for hair texture and colouring- it’s genetic, but it varies given that genetic makeup. In the end, anyone of European descent can mate with someone who has recent African ancestry and not be committing beastiality or mixing two different human species, because all humans are one species.
Melanism related to the process of adaptation is called adaptive. ... Typically, adaptive melanism is heritable: A dominant allele, which is entirely or nearly entirely expressed in the phenotype, is responsible for the excessive amount of melanin.
Melanism, meaning a mutation that results in completely dark skin, does not exist in humans. Melanin is the primary determinant of the degree of skin pigmentation and protects the body from harmful ultraviolet radiation. The same ultraviolet radiation is essential for the synthesis of vitamin D in skin, so lighter colored skin - less melanin - is an adaptation related to the prehistoric movement of humans away from equatorial regions, as there is less exposure to sunlight at higher latitudes. People from parts of Africa, South Asia, Southeast Asia, and Australia have very dark skin, but this is not melanism.
I have issues with the above from Wiki. I think the statement “Melanism, meaning a mutation that results in completely dark skin, does not exist in humans.” is misleading. I think what they are trying to say is that no human has completely dark skin. Only in this context does the statement “People from parts of Africa, South Asia, Southeast Asia, and Australia have very dark skin, but this is not melanism.” make sense. It looks to me as if they have tried to separate “melanism” from “adaptive melanism” as defined in the first paragraph. I think they blew it
Our closest relative on the tree is the Chimpanzee. Note that the chimp we commonly see in photos has light skin. I read a reference to a theory that both early chimps and humans had “white” skin, but I cannot find it again. The theory as I understand it is that humans underwent adaptive melanism as they lost their hair. The articles on chimps in Wiki state that chimps have light to dark skin. The photos there show chimps with skin about the same color as mine.
The fact that people do not experience complete melanism (being born completely black) but do experience albinism suggests to me that we (all humans) were and are actually a “white” race and have inherited our skin color because of more or less adaptive melanism occurring in our ancestors. This seems to me to be a less complicated explanation of different skin color than the commonly accepted idea that we all started out as “black” and mutated into various colors.
If it turns out that our roots were “white” people, not “black” people, what then? If so, maybe it will bring us closer together.
@ibelieveinlogic So now, due to an article on Wikipedia, which is not a reliable source, you’re insisting Black people are not human? That is really stupid and totally not true. Please get your racist thinking out of the hole. Thank you very much.
So now, due to an article on Wikipedia, which is not a reliable source, you’re insisting Black people are not human? That is really stupid and totally not true. Please get your racist thinking out of the hole.
Mriana, please try to get your victim mentality and racism ideas out of your head for a minute or two and try to understand what I actually posted. Your post is so far off base that it is almost unbelievable.
What I posted is, in layman’s terms, that the simple answer to different skin color among humans seems to be that the common ancestor of all humans had skin color much like chimpanzees and, as they lost their hair over thousands of years, adaptive melanism caused darker skin color in areas with more sunlight.
Because there is no reason to believe that chimps have evolved a different skin color and because their skin color is closer to average “white” skin color today it seems reasonable to say that our ancient human ancestors started out with that same light, or what we now call “white”, skin color. If it were not for adaptive melanism, all humans around the world would be “white”.
I do not understand how you get that I am “insisting Black people are not human” from anything I posted. In fact the opposite is true. I think it is obvious that all humans of whatever color have that color simply because of thousands of years of inherited adaptive melanism. In case you didn’t read the articles, adaptive melanism is the reason humans tan when exposed to sunlight.
We are only one race, the human race. What was termed racism before people (should have) realized there is only one race is actually just descriptive of the tendency of all peoples everywhere to reject others who appear to be different. It is unfortunate that we use a term for this tendency that perpetuates the idea that we are of different races, an idea that is totally wrong.
Perhaps you can take some comfort from knowing that the “good ole boys”, including some that I play poker with, are much more likely to shook up more by what I have posted than you are. Every now and then we really need to accept that what we have been taught is just plain wrong. Race is one of those things.
An ancient primate ancestor with white skin is the root of all people? I guess it could be worse.
But seriously, I think albinism is pretty well understood by scientists and is not considered to be a factor in human evolution. However, it’s likely that early modern humans did have a good bit of variation in skin colors because new remains have been discovered in different parts of Africa outside the savanna.
@sree you are a bit naive about genetics. During slavery and shortly there after, there were these sayings, “white as snow” and “passing”, meaning that a mulatto, quadroon, or ocdroon (names for 1/2, 1/4, and 1/8) were so light complected they could say they were white and no one would know, unless they looked closely OR married a white man (or possibly a white woman) and the baby was born darker or have black features, like the nose, which could happen and sometimes did. The thing is, for the features to be noticable, which in the past they didn’t quite understand, was the gene had to be on both sides, just like two Black people, with white genes could have a child that is very light because they both passed the gene for light skin. Because of slavery, it isn’t unheard of for a Black family to have offspring with varying complexions.
I found his observation strange too. There is no way a blond white-skin Michelle Obama or Serena Williams could pass for a white woman.
You are right of course. Neither of them are albino. My observation was that the women I saw in the program appeared to have some facial features not similar to their supposed lineage. My conclusion was that albinism includes, or may include, differences in appearance other than just skin color.
But seriously, I think albinism is pretty well understood by scientists and is not considered to be a factor in human evolution.
I think that albinism is not the zero point of melanism but is a true mutation. All humans, except those with albinism, have the ability to produce melanin in the skin. I can accept that albinism is one possible way early humans came to have different facial features. I've not seen another another obvious way, except for Down's and inbreeding, for that to have happened. I think it is wrong to believe that skin color and facial features are part of human evolution. It seems to me that there is only one modern human.
However, it’s likely that early modern humans did have a good bit of variation in skin colors because new remains have been discovered in different parts of Africa outside the savanna.
That is what adaptive melanism is; more exposure to sun leads to more melanin production and thus darker skin. It doesn't seem to be really clear just how adaptive melanism is inherited. Ancestry in parts of Africa and Australia seems to be much less diverse than in other parts of the world and skin color among native peoples seems to be more consistent through generations.
It is easy to accept that mating within a relatively small group will produce a population with common features sometimes quite different from other even nearby groups ; gypsies in Europe were known to have learned to identify people from different areas solely by their appearance. And it is well known that inbreeding often produces undesirable results.
An ancient primate ancestor with white skin is the root of all people? I guess it could be worse.
If it is true, perhaps it will bring us closer together. One day we'll decipher the human genome and the truth will set us free. At the very least it should set us free from wrong ideas about race. What disturbs me is that I have lived so many decades and just discovered the knowledge required for me to accept such an important truth. For me, being told has never been enough; I need to be shown.
I can accept that albinism is one possible way early humans came to have different facial features. I’ve not seen another another obvious way, except for Down’s and inbreeding, for that to have happened. I think it is wrong to believe that skin color and facial features are part of human evolution. It seems to me that there is only one modern human.
How is it wrong? Differences in facial features and skin color can be explained well by evolution. For starters, here is something about why humans have many different nose shapes.
Seems to me that, from what we can tell so far, we homo sapiens started out as dark skinned people from Africa. And then as they moved out of Africa, to environments that were different there were changes in morphology, including changes in melanin levels. (Plus having sex with other humanoids of the time, probably contributed to morphological changes.)
I think that the emergence of white homo sapiens was after migration out of Africa.
I suppose it could be that long before early homo sapiens in Africa were dark skinned, they had ancestors with light skin, but there is no evidence of such, afaik.
Whatever the case we are all homo sapiens. (With those who did not remain in Africa being infused with a wee bit of genes from Denisovians, Neanderthal, and probably other humanoids.)
The article talks about "gene drift" calling it a random process. Horse feathers. There is no such thing as "random". It also claims long thin noses developed in cold climates. More feathers. Go to Alaska; look at the native people.
Seems to me that, from what we can tell so far, we homo sapiens started out as dark skinned people from Africa.
That's what most of us were taught in school along with the idea that humans are from different races. I was always skeptical about that. Once I realized that the process of melanin production is common to all humans, I had to accept that skin color is only superficial, not racial.
... other humanoids of the time ...
I was also very skeptical of the emergence of humans from multiple origins. The single origin explanation with migration much earlier than thought is much simpler and easier to imagine especially with the very low probability of finding ancient remains after so much change in climate, geology and ocean levels.
Something like 90% of all humans today live within 100 miles of a coast. And that is with our modern ability to travel and communicate. We have not had the ability to search for early human remains within a reasonable travel distance for early humans from ancient shores, what we call the continental shelf today. We can’t even determine with accuracy the recent migration into North America.
I find it easier to accept that Neanderthals and others came after the initial migration out of Africa and that their distinct features probably resulted from a relatively small breeding population and mutations such as Albinism, Downs and possibly others. I have not heard any reason why migration was all one way or that it was actually all one way. I think the idea that we can determine skin color of these peoples from DNA is probably wrong. At best it seems like comparing them to modern people, who have their skin color by means of inherited adaptive melanism. To me, this means their original or ancestral skin color was light or what we call “white”.