Hi there. New to the forum but I have been reading up on skeptic material as of late.
One thing that struck me hard was a comment that I read somewhere referring to white people as a mistake. That we are the result of “dravidian albinos” as they called it. Saying that we are the result of a genetic mutation that was never supposed to happen and then calling them the human equivalent of cancer. Additional comments were along the lines of white skin being recessive and therefor inferior (because it burns easy I guess). They also mention eskimos as to “colored” people living in the cold. Needless to say I don’t know anything about anthropology or human evolution to argue against this.
I need help with this one.
No particular mutation is “supposed to” happen. They just sometimes happen. If they interfere with survival to reproduction, then they will likely extinguish. Evolution is not about what is “supposed to” happen. There are plenty of white people around who seem to me to be passing their genes on, so one would have to assume, I think, that a mutation that lead to less melanin, was successful, from an evolutionary standpoint. (Also, some people think that the lighter skin, allowing in more Vitamin D, was adaptive in less sunny climates.)
BTW, I would suggest that whoever is feeding you the line about “dravidian albinos” whatever that is, and the light skin mutation, being “equivalent to a human cancer”, may well be someone whose racism is a bit out of control.
Basically, we were probably all black, ancestrally speaking, originally. In the distant future, we may all be some sort of dull blend, but we will probably still all be, essentially, the same humans that we have always been, regardless of the superficial coloring of skin, hair, and eyes.
One thing that struck me hard was a comment that I read somewhere referring to white people as a mistake. That we are the result of “dravidian albinos" as they called it.I've heard that before, are you reading Nation of Islam literature? TimB's comments about evolution are totally correct; I would add that white skin is an adaption to lower UV radiation levels as well as agriculture/herding lifestyles - both are associated with vitamin D synthesis. It doesn't have anything to do with cold weather.
Hi there. New to the forum but I have been reading up on skeptic material as of late. One thing that struck me hard was a comment that I read somewhere referring to white people as a mistake. That we are the result of "dravidian albinos" as they called it. Saying that we are the result of a genetic mutation that was never supposed to happen and then calling them the human equivalent of cancer. Additional comments were along the lines of white skin being recessive and therefor inferior (because it burns easy I guess). They also mention eskimos as to "colored" people living in the cold. Needless to say I don't know anything about anthropology or human evolution to argue against this. I need help with this one.That's crazy, TM. People who migrated to Northern lands became lighter and lighter over millennia because they no longer needed the dark pigmentation people required for survival in tropical climates. Pigmentation offers protection from the sun. Migrants to Northern lands became lighter over millions of years through evolution and natural selection. Lighter people were better able to survive than darker people in northern climates. Albinism is a genetic mutation--an anomaly--which can be lethal. Before modern medicine and an understanding of what albinism is, albinos did not live long--often not long enough to reproduce, so albinism could not be the cause of white skin. Albinos can be born to black parents. Albinos also suffered great prejudice and were often seen as curses. They were often killed by parents or tribes, but even the ones who were not killed did not live long because they had no protection from the sun. They also suffer from vision problems, which made them less likely to survive in primitive hunter-gatherer societies. You need to understand what skepticism, logic and the burden of proof are--and learn how natural selection works and what causes mutations like albinism. Otherwise you will always be vulnerable to any hare-brained idea that comes down the pike--such as that albinism, a genetic mutation, which is actually a rare genetic error, could have been what made people white. I'm glad you found us. We may be your salvation. Lois
I find it to be almost laughable how gullible I am to just about everything there is out there. By brain is like a sponge.
I find it to be almost laughable how gullible I am to just about everything there is out there. By brain is like a sponge.Have you ever heard of Skeptical Inquirer Magazine? It's published by the Center for Inquiry, the sponsors of this discussion group. Read a few back issues. They may be available at a public library. Read them cover to cover and consider getting a subscription. I guarantee that if you do this you can learn how to view claims skeptically. Few people are born skeptics-- you have to learn the technique. It isn't hard. You just have to concentrate and learn to look beneath the surface of any claim. One more thing--the burden of proof of any claim lies with the person making the claim. That means he or she must show you objective evidence to support the claim. You are never required to prove the claim wrong. Objective evidence is evidence you can observe, examine and test or that someone else can observe, examine and test, not just an argument. It takes time to learn how to do this, but you can do it. Having a brain like a sponge can be a good thing. You just have to learn what kinds of knowledge to allow it to soak up and what kinds of unsupported claims to stay away from. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptical_Inquirer Click on the items under the heading, See Also. You can subscribe to Skeptical Inquirer here. http://www.csicop.org/si Good luck, Lois
I find it to be almost laughable how gullible I am to just about everything there is out there. By brain is like a sponge.Stick around. We'll slap that gullibility out of your head in a few months.
I find it to be almost laughable how gullible I am to just about everything there is out there. By brain is like a sponge.Stick around. We'll slap that gullibility out of your head in a few months. Don't worry, DarronS is all bark and no bite. Spongey brains are good. I was 50 before I started to really question supernatural phenomenon. I realized I had only a very basic understanding of evolution. My biggest problem is that I had no method for figuring out what is true. This is basically what happened when scholars began to emerge from the "Dark Ages". They started translating the old Greek philosophy and found this idea of rationalism, but it also lacked a method. Due to a variety of failures of modern education, individuals are doing this rediscovery again today.
I find it to be almost laughable how gullible I am to just about everything there is out there. By brain is like a sponge.Stick around. We'll slap that gullibility out of your head in a few months. But in a nice constructive way. :cheese: _____________________________________________________________________ If you want to learn more about evolution the easy way, you can start with some David Attenborough documentaries. The first is sort of dated, but the content is as valid as ever, oh and you'll also have to get used to a Brit. narrator but once you warm up to him he's great.
Life on Earth: A Natural History by David Attenborough is a television natural history series made by the BBC in association with Warner Bros. and Reiner Moritz Productions. It was transmitted in the UK from 16 January 1979. During the course of the series presenter David Attenborough… travels the globe in order to trace the story of the evolution of life on the planet. Highly acclaimed, it is the first in Attenborough's 'Life' series of programmes and was followed by The Living Planet (1984). It established Attenborough as not only the foremost television naturalist, but also an iconic figure in British cultural life. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_on_Earth_(TV_series) 13 @ hour long showsThe thing blew my young socks off. I was always a little hippy dippy about nature and such, but seeing the evolution of animals this wonderfully presented and with an amazing number of "living fossils" to drive home realization that what happened way back in dim pre-history does have a direct barring on today. More up to date but at only two hours in total, it misses a lot of the richness of the older longer series - but is a great informative show in it's own right.
First Life sees Attenborough tackle the subject of the origin of life on Earth. He investigates the evidence from the earliest fossils, which suggest that complex animals first appeared in the oceans around 540 million years ago, an event known as the Cambrian Explosion. Trace fossils of multicellular organisms from an even earlier period, the Ediacaran biota, are also examined. Attenborough travels to Canada, Morocco and Australia, using some of the latest fossil discoveries and their nearest equivalents amongst living species to reveal what life may have been like at that time. Visual effects and computer animation are used to reconstruct and animate the extinct life forms. Attenborough's Journey, a documentary film profiling the presenter as he journeyed around the globe filming First Life, was shown on BBC Two on 24 October 2010. A hardback book to accompany the series, authored by Matt Kaplan with a foreword by Attenborough, was published in September 2010. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Life_(TV_series)
After putting that up I realized it’s human evolution you might be more interested, than that whole story that so fascinates me, with humanity being the last and oh so tragic hurrah. But I got a recommendation for that too.
The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey is a 2002 book by Spencer Wells, an American geneticist and anthropologist, in which he uses techniques and theories of genetics and evolutionary biology to trace the geographical dispersal of early human migrations out of Africa. The book was made into a TV documentary in 2003. Synopsis[edit] According to the recent single-origin hypothesis, human ancestors originated in Africa, and eventually made their way out to the rest of the world. Analysis of the Y chromosome is one of the methods used in tracing the history of early humans. Thirteen genetic markers on the Y-chromosome differentiate populations of human beings. It is believed, on the basis of genetic evidence, that all human beings in existence now descend from one single man who lived in Africa about 60,000 years ago.[2] The earliest groups of humans are believed to find their present-day descendants among the San people, a group that is now found in western southern Africa. The San are smaller than the Bantu. They have lighter skins, more tightly curled hair, and they share the epicanthal fold with the people of Central Asian SouthEast Asia, such as the white people and black people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Journey_of_Manhttp://topdocumentaryfilms.com/journey-man-genetic-odyssey/
Basically, we were probably all black, ancestrally speaking, originally. In the distant future, we may all be some sort of dull blend, but we will probably still all be, essentially, the same humans that we have always been, regardless of the superficial coloring of skin, hair, and eyes.No human race evolved out of another human race. Race is not just the superficial coloring of skin, hair, and eyes. It is a lot more. Moreover, Africans reached the stage of Anatomically Modern Human approximately 200,000 years before the Eurasians did. Human races had obviously evolved already at the stage of Homo erectus. This is a very appropriate topic to show that the nonsense that the scientists have been preaching at times is much worse than what the theologians have been preaching.
I never said any of that. I was referring to people talking now about one race being better than another, black or otherwise. Also referring to one race being cancer and “not supposed to exist”. Plus a few bits about genetic superiority.
I never said any of that. I was referring to people talking now about one race being better than another, black or otherwise. Also referring to one race being cancer and "not supposed to exist". Plus a few bits about genetic superiority.The idea of races within modern humans is erroneous. Using hair color or eye color as a differentiator would make as little (i.e. no) sense as assigning race based on skin color. We are all one race.
I think the notion is that having closer ties with an origin and being more “natural” makes one better. They also like to use the fact that some great atrocities were committed by who’re people and that they are more violent, cold, rigid, and a few other things.
Jeez, I haven't seen that stuff in more than 40 years. psikOne thing that struck me hard was a comment that I read somewhere referring to white people as a mistake. That we are the result of “dravidian albinos" as they called it.I've heard that before, are you reading Nation of Islam literature?
Basically, we were probably all black, ancestrally speaking, originally...No human race evolved out of another human race. Race is not just the superficial coloring of skin, hair, and eyes. It is a lot more. Moreover, Africans reached the stage of Anatomically Modern Human approximately 200,000 years before the Eurasians did. Human races had obviously evolved already at the stage of Homo erectus. This is a very appropriate topic to show that the nonsense that the scientists have been preaching at times is much worse than what the theologians have been preaching.
Are you in a contest with yourself on how many pompous, unfounded, misguided assertions that you can make in a single post? Because, if so, guess what? You won!You have to first learn not to lose your temper and, secondly, to trust your own reasoning and not funny theories proposed by scholars who want their name heard no matter what nonsense they have to spout in order to achieve it.
What you perjoratively named a " funny philosophical argument" was a simple statement, eluding to the discovery, that ALL OF US who are alive today probably descended from a single male who lived 60,000 years ago, in Africa. Was he black? Hmmm... PROBABLY.That we all living today descended from a single man (Adam) who lived 60,000 years ago is but a ridiculous theological theory in the trail of the other, even more ridiculous, theory known as “Out of Africa". Homo erectus moved out of Africa more than one million years ago and did not die out. His descendants in Europe were the European Neanderthals, In the Middle East were the Early Modern Homo sapiens and the Asian Neanderthals and in the Far East the Denisovans, the Floresiensies and the Chinese- Japanese, as far as we know. The African Homo Erectus produced the people of the African tribes and the members of the white race. Neanderthals, Early Modern Homo sapiens, Denisovans, Floresiensies, Africans, Asians and white people are subdivisions, races, of the species Homo. We are one species but many races. So, to say that we all descended from a man who lived 60,000 years ago is plain idiotic.
And you assert with unbridled confidence, by pulling it out of your ass, apparently, because it wasn't in the research article that you linked to, that (1) there was already a white race in Africa 60,000 years ago. (Show research that actually shows this if you are going to assert it so confidently.)Read about Sibudu Cave] where the earliest bone arrow (61,000 years old), the earliest needle (61,000 years old), the earliest use of heat-treated mixed compound gluing (72,000 years ago) and the earliest example of the use of bedding (77,000 years ago), were found. Those with the advanced technology were always the white people, up to now. Then look again at figure 3 of the article provided where it is shown that the whites evolved separately and have nothing to do with the black race. Those are the conclusions of a 2010 study by Max Plank Institute, confirmed by following studies in 2012 and 2013.
(2) That this white race went on a Neanderthal extermination spree over tens of thousands of years as they migrated through the Mid east and into Europe. (Wow, that is so interesting, but once again, show research that actually says this if you are going to assert it so confidently.)That is something that the kids nowadays are taught in elementary school. :-)
And your topic sentence that "No human race evolved out of another human race." seems so ludicrous at face value, that it is difficult to know what to do with it. The humans that we have today are all just humans. We all share a common ancestral heritage. "Race" is just a category definer of rather superficial characteristics within the broader category of the human race that exists today.It is Human Species, not human race!
And please note that having some small portion of Denisovian, and/ Neanderthal heritage, (that some black Africans, do not have) does not negate my simple statement, (that you tried to trash with your personal dogmatic ideas and hubris), that we (who are alive today) were probably all black ancestrally speaking, originally.Quote from page 1 of the 2010 study: This revealed that Neanderthal DNA sequences and those of present-day humans share common ancestors on average about 800,000 years ago and that the population split of Neanderthal and modern human ancestors occurred 270,000–440,000 years ago. It also showed that Neanderthals shared more genetic variants with present-day humans in Eurasia than with present-day humans in sub-Saharan Africa, indicating that gene flow from Neanderthals into the ancestors of non-Africans occurred to an extent that 1–4% of the genomes of people outside Africa are derived from Neanderthals Unquote Africans did not move out of Africa until they were abducted to be slaves by the white people.
Are you in a contest with yourself on how many pompous, unfounded, misguided assertions that you can make in a single post? Because, if so, guess what? You won!You have to first learn not to lose your temper and, secondly, to trust your own reasoning and not funny theories proposed by scholars who want their name heard no matter what nonsense they have to spout in order to achieve it. Classic maneuvers of the pseudo-scientist. After pagers of name calling and childish remarks, tell others to control their temper. Then tell them to trust their own reasoning and that scholars are only in it because they want fame. As if spouting nonsense is a way to get famous. You remind me of a story a woman once told me. Her father said he was going to teach her to think for herself, so he told her some facts and data, then asked her to draw a conclusion, so she did. Then he said, "No, that's the wrong conclusion, here, let me repeat, this time, think for yourself." You also commit the major error of pseudo-scientists, you show us your work. You give us a quote or an article, then you say what conclusion you drew from that. Unfortunately, you came to CFI, where people read those kinds of articles, and have used reasoning that involves listening to others who have done even more work on these ideas, and together they have much more convincing evidence than you do.
Classic maneuvers of the pseudo-scientist. After pagers of name calling and childish remarks, tell others to control their temper. Then tell them to trust their own reasoning and that scholars are only in it because they want fame.Have you noticed that this comment of yours was to just express you dislike of my person? How about your opinion regarding the 60,000-year-old male, black, progenitor of human kind?
As if spouting nonsense is a way to get famous.Sure it is! What better example of that of Chris Stringer, the proponent of the “Out of Africa" theory who then had to revise the nonsense he spouted?]
Unfortunately, you came to CFI, where people read those kinds of articles, and have used reasoning that involves listening to others who have done even more work on these ideas, and together they have much more convincing evidence than you do.Pity I haven’t met these people yet. :-P