Is white skin an aberration?

General Discussion
41
(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. :-)
NO IT IS NOT. AFAIK, we only know that the Neanderthals died out, in conjunction with the geographical cohabitation of territories with homo sapiens. We know that some Neanderthals and homo sapiens interbred, at some point. We don't know how or why the Neanderthals died out. And, again, unless you can show otherwise, we do not know that the homo sapiens who left Africa 60,000 years ago were white before they migrated. AFAIK, this is completely contrary to current thinking, by researchers.
It's been proven with DNA testing that native Africans who didn't migrate or interbreed have no Neanderthal genes. Only the ones who migrated out of Africa have them. Lois
42
You wildly misunderstood. I was referring to whether or not we came from albinos, whether we were a mistake that never should have happened, and about this sense that being black is somehow superior to being white. Read my previous posts. My questions remain unanswered.
They were answered, you just werent paying attention. A race cannot derive from a missing gene--which is what causes albinism. It's too rare and is not necessarily passed on to the next generation. You said, early on in this thread, "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." It looks as if you are still as gullible as ever.
43
...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...
You eluded to, but did not link to a Max Plank Institute study, that I have not yet tried to find. But so far, your assertions like the one above, don't appear to me to be supported by your links. That was to be expected since none of you bother to read the articles suggested. This is the link I provided.] and here is the “Acknowledgments" section: We thank C. Bustamante, A. I. Krivoshapkin, M. Lachmann, R. Nielsen, K. Pruefer, A. Tsybankov, L. Vigilant and W. Zhai for comments; K. Finstermeier for graphics work; the MPI-EVA sequencing group, R. Schultz and S. Weihnachtsmann for technical support; and P. Fujita, A. Hinrichs and K. Learned for designing the UCSC genome browser portal to the Denisova data. The Presidential Innovation Fund of the Max Planck Society and the Krekeler Foundation provided financial support. M.S. was supported by a US National Institutes of Health grant (R01-GM40282). The National Science Foundation provided an International Postdoctoral Fellowship (OISE-0754461) to J.M.G., a Fellowship in Biological Informatics to P.L.F.J. and a HOMINID grant (1032255) to D.R. And here is who Svante Pääbo is.] Those who left South Africa at approximately 60k years ago and reached Europe by 40k years ago left a trail of modern technology (the so-called “blade stone tools") all the way from Africa to Europe and in Europe they taught Neanderthals to make stone tools of advanced technology.
It seems to be a far fetched assumption, like your far fetched assumption that a white race of anatomically modern humans already existed and came out of Africa to go on a Neanderthal killing spree thru the Mid East and then Europe.
You (plural) have the report of a study by the best geneticists of our time, but instead of reading it and discussing it in order to see what we understand out of it, you prefer to defend obsolete ideas and expect to be treated as reasonable people interested in scientific inquiry!! None of this appears to support your (what seem very much to be unfounded assumptions) extraordinary assertions that because there is evidence that certain peoples, 60,000 yrs ago, had superior technology, that they must have, therefore, been white, AND that the homo sapiens that migrated from Africa, at that time, were already white. How can we have a reasonable discussion when you so vigorously insert, such extraordinary and unsupported assertions?
44

Hasn’t really answered the superiority part.

45
My question still hasn't been answered regarding how people believe that having black or dark skin is some sort of genetic superiority over white skin or how white skin (being recessive) makes it somehow inferior because it is recessive. Or how they argue that most atrocities were committed by individuals white white skin. In short my question has not been answered in regards to the genetic and racial superiority parts.
Really, Titano? Can you not grasp the silliness of the statement "dark skin is some sort of genetic superiority over white skin or how white skin (being recessive) makes it somehow inferior because it is recessive"? That is just someone's racist moralistic interpretation. It is basically a statement of the asserter's morals re: white people and black people. Evolution as a theory is not about moralistic values. Some people who value black people over white people or vice a versa, will come up with pseudo scientific claptrap to support their own particular dogmatic moralistic values. Some people do that sort of thing (regardless of their particular skin color.) In regards to the assertion that "most atrocities were committed by individuals with white skin.: People are potentially capable of committing atrocities, again, regardless of their skin color. People who have the upper hand, due to resources or social structure, may be able to commit atrocities on a grander scale or with more efficacy, and, sometimes, may document it more, when they do. But all colors of people have historically committed atrocities at one time or another (and some continue to do so).
46
Those who left South Africa at approximately 60k years ago and reached Europe by 40k years ago left a trail of modern technology (the so-called “blade stone tools") all the way from Africa to Europe and in Europe they taught Neanderthals to make stone tools of advanced technology.
It seems to be a far fetched assumption, like your far fetched assumption that a white race of anatomically modern humans already existed and came out of Africa to go on a Neanderthal killing spree thru the Mid East and then Europe.
By saying “it seems to be" you evade your responsibility to prove the assumption far-fetched; am I right? There is more to it which you ignore but you do not ask me to support my assertion before attacking it. Some layers containing the Advanced Technology (AT) tools are beneath layers of Primitive Technology (PT) tools indicating that the people of the advanced technology left without teaching their technique to the new comers. That is the fact! My interpretation is that the AT people were defeated and ejected by the PT people. On top of that there is a theory proposing that the Neanderthals (who were physically extremely strong) were defeated by the AMH (Anatomically Modern Humans) because the latter were using projectile weapons (Goliath was killed by David with the help of a projectile weapon). As regards the white race, we have learned that it did not evolve out of the black race and therefore it did exist independently as white race since it appeared, c. 270,000 years ago. What is wrong with that assumption?
None of this appears to support your (what seem very much to be unfounded assumptions) extraordinary assertions that because there is evidence that certain peoples, 60,000 yrs ago, had superior technology, that they must have, therefore, been white, AND that the homo sapiens that migrated from Africa, at that time, were already white.
That is another undeniable fact: The people of the advanced technology were those who ended up in Northern Europe, and they were members of the white race.
How can we have a reasonable discussion when you so vigorously insert, such extraordinary and unsupported assertions?
Oh!! It is my assertions which are the unsupported ones, ha? What evidence have you presented so far?
47
By saying “it seems to be" you evade your responsibility to prove the assumption far-fetched; am I right?...
I use the term “it seems to be" in the awareness of my own lack of omniscience, (an awareness they you may lack for yourself). I give you the opportunity to provide proof for your assertions that an organized group of people with white skin appeared, c. 270,000 years ago, and later moved out of Africa, killing off the Neanderthals in the Mid East and then in Europe. But your proof that you provide is re-iteration of the same assertions. i.e., you again say "As regards the white race, we have learned that it did not evolve out of the black race...?" Please show explicitly how we have learned that. Cause I've been looking and I cannot find it. Also, you assert absolutely that this group of people who you say had white skin, when (and before) they left Africa, had superior technology along with their white skin, throughout their group's history. These extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Surely you can understand that simply repeating your claims as if they are absolutely true, does not constitute evidence.
48

The latest stuff hitting the news about white skin is that the UV theory did not pan out. So that left the question, where did the white people come from? To quickly come up with an answer, the people at the University of Cambridge‎, Nature World Report, University of Wisconsin‑Madison, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Columbia School of Engineering and Applied Science got together and came up with the theory that goes something like this. One group of people migrated out of Africa 45K years ago. Migrated just north of India. Was isolated from the rest of the people in Europe and Asia until 15K years ago. While in this isolation they breed with a fourth human group. This fourth human branch is yet to be found. Then they migrated to Europe.

49
The latest stuff hitting the news about white skin is that the UV theory did not pan out. So that left the question, where did the white people come from? To quickly come up with an answer, the people at the University of Cambridge‎, Nature World Report, University of Wisconsin‑Madison, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Columbia School of Engineering and Applied Science got together and came up with the theory that goes something like this. One group of people migrated out of Africa 45K years ago. Migrated just north of India. Was isolated from the rest of the people in Europe and Asia until 15K years ago. While in this isolation they breed with a fourth human group. This fourth human branch is yet to be found. Then they migrated to Europe. http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/fourth-strand-european-ancestry-originated-hunter-gatherers-isolated-020622
Theres nothing in that article about the UV theory being incorrect, it's mostly talking about genetic similarities between various Eurasian peoples.
50
i.e., you again say "As regards the white race, we have learned that it did not evolve out of the black race...?" Please show explicitly how we have learned that. Cause I've been looking and I cannot find it.
Look at figures 1 and 3 of the 2010 report] of the study by the Max Planck Institute geneticists. Look at Figure 3 of the 2012 report] of the study by the same geneticists as above. Look at the following figure from the 2013 report] ... …and tell me what you understand out of these figures. Neanderthal = Vindija Africans= San and Yoruba Europeans = French Chinese = Han South American Indians = Karitiana
Also, you assert absolutely that this group of people who you say had white skin, when (and before) they left Africa, had superior technology along with their white skin, throughout their group's history.
Any book you will read about palaeoanthropology will inform you that the most advanced technology was that of the Homo sapiens sapiens who came out of Africa.
51

Why do you think Homo sapiens sapiens started out white?

52
Why do you think Homo sapiens sapiens started out white?
Homo sapiens sapiens is a term we use instead of Anatomically Modern Humans (AMH). We all are Homo sapiens sapiens, i.e., Africans and Eurasians, the other Homo being Homo sapiens Neanderthalensis, Homo sapiens Denisovensis and Homo sapiens Floresiensies, who are not regarded AMH, although they were humans and they could interbreed with AMH and produce fertile offspring.
53
The latest stuff hitting the news about white skin is that the UV theory did not pan out. So that left the question, where did the white people come from? To quickly come up with an answer, the people at the University of Cambridge‎, Nature World Report, University of Wisconsin‑Madison, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Columbia School of Engineering and Applied Science got together and came up with the theory that goes something like this. One group of people migrated out of Africa 45K years ago. Migrated just north of India. Was isolated from the rest of the people in Europe and Asia until 15K years ago. While in this isolation they breed with a fourth human group. This fourth human branch is yet to be found. Then they migrated to Europe. http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/fourth-strand-european-ancestry-originated-hunter-gatherers-isolated-020622
Theres nothing in that article about the UV theory being incorrect, it's mostly talking about genetic similarities between various Eurasian peoples. You are correct about there being nothing in the article about the UV theory being incorrect. It is common knowledge by the latest news reports that the UV theory is a joke. What happened was a group started a study to build at timeline on the movement of white skin people in Europe. So they tested bones from the past that were assumed to be white skin. They could not find any white skin in the tests of older bones. Otherwise why is this article even written? There are two actions happening here. First, the public wants to believe in the UV theory, so no notice was given to the study. And I am pretty sure I posted that news article about UV theory being disproved on this site not that long ago when Lausten and I were talking about white skin. Second, the scholars who work in the science fields of white skin have been caught with their pants down and had to come up with an another answer. How often do you see a theory based upon something that has not been found like (forth human branch)? Well, maybe in inner and outer space.
54
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. That's right. There is no biological test that can detect race. Race is a mental construct. Lois
55

Where is the proof that UV theory is wrong?

56
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. That's right. There is no biological test that can detect race. Race is a mental construct. Lois Yes race is a bad word. Ethnicity is not a bad word and they do have tests that can determine ethnicity, heritage, lineage, whatever you want to call it. They can detect Neanderthal DNA in people. You can send out for your own personal DNA test to determine ethnic lineage.
57
Where is the proof that UV theory is wrong?
Some of these folks are combing the outer reaches of the internet to make points Titan. People that moved up into areas with less intense sunlight, less periods of sunlight probably did evolve lighter skin. We are walking around right now with indirect evidence of this in our skin cells. Melanin.
58

The UV theory is probably correct, essentially. But WHEN light skin showed up, in large portions of the Eurasian population, is in question. Researchers seem to agree, now, that there was interbreeding between us “modern” humans (AMH’s) and Neanderthals, at some point, or a few points, But WHEN those conjugations took place is not well pinned down. Neanderthals were, apparently, light skinned with straight hair. The genes that they shared may have resulted in the straight hair showing up, commonly, sooner than the light skin began showing up, commonly, in Asian and Eurasian AMH populations. The light skin may not have been particularly adaptive until a shift occurred on a broad scale dietarily, due to the advent of people surviving more on an agricultural based diet. (Then, low vitamin D may have been more of a survival to reproduction issue.) If straight hair showed up sooner, my best guess is that it, sometimes, offered a reproductive advantage in attracting mates. (No offense, kinky haired people. You are beautiful, too.)
It has been suggested by some research, that Neanderthal interbreeding also probably caused AMH males (that were a product of such) to be less fertile. But, nevertheless, some Neanderthal genes remained, in what became AMH Asian and European populations. ( I presume that these genes, that can effect skin and hair, were passed on, primarily thru female progeny, but that is just my guess). One genomic statistical analysis, in 2008, of genomes suggested the possibility that light skin only became widespread in the European population as late as 11,000 years ago. Another article that I read suggested that light skin in the population only became common even more recently, - like maybe 7,000 years ago (with the broader advent of agricultural based groups).
Still, the whole deal with suppositions like this, is that they are the best guesses of what anthropologists and geneticists have come up with, so far. It seems to me like trying to make sense of a 10,000 piece jigsaw puzzle, when they have only a rather random 100 pieces.
But we do know that we need Vitamin D. The relatives of our ancestors who didn’t get enough, probably, mostly died before they could reproduce. But our actual ancestors did not die, else, we wouldn’t be here. So those of us AMH’s with Eurasian heritage, very well might not be here, if some of our ancestors had not conjugated with Neanderthals.

59
Why do you think Homo sapiens sapiens started out white?
Homo sapiens sapiens is a term we use instead of Anatomically Modern Humans (AMH). We all are Homo sapiens sapiens, i.e., Africans and Eurasians, the other Homo being Homo sapiens Neanderthalensis, Homo sapiens Denisovensis and Homo sapiens Floresiensies, who are not regarded AMH, although they were humans and they could interbreed with AMH and produce fertile offspring. One thing I've noticed that the crackpots who come around here have in common is they cannot answer a direct question. This is an excellent example.
60
The UV theory is probably correct, essentially. But WHEN light skin showed up, in large portions of the Eurasian population, is in question. Researchers seem to agree, now, that there was interbreeding between us "modern" humans (AMH's) and Neanderthals, at some point, or a few points, But WHEN those conjugations took place is not well pinned down. Neanderthals were, apparently, light skinned with straight hair. The genes that they shared may have resulted in the straight hair showing up, commonly, sooner than the light skin began showing up, commonly, in Asian and Eurasian AMH populations. The light skin may not have been particularly adaptive until a shift occurred on a broad scale dietarily, due to the advent of people surviving more on an agricultural based diet. (Then, low vitamin D may have been more of a survival to reproduction issue.) If straight hair showed up sooner, my best guess is that it, sometimes, offered a reproductive advantage in attracting mates. (No offense, kinky haired people. You are beautiful, too.) It has been suggested by some research, that Neanderthal interbreeding also probably caused AMH males (that were a product of such) to be less fertile. But, nevertheless, some Neanderthal genes remained, in what became AMH Asian and European populations. ( I presume that these genes, that can effect skin and hair, were passed on, primarily thru female progeny, but that is just my guess). One genomic statistical analysis, in 2008, of genomes suggested the possibility that light skin only became widespread in the European population as late as 11,000 years ago. Another article that I read suggested that light skin in the population only became common even more recently, - like maybe 7,000 years ago (with the broader advent of agricultural based groups). Still, the whole deal with suppositions like this, is that they are the best guesses of what anthropologists and geneticists have come up with, so far. It seems to me like trying to make sense of a 10,000 piece jigsaw puzzle, when they have only a rather random 100 pieces. But we do know that we need Vitamin D. The relatives of our ancestors who didn't get enough, probably, mostly died before they could reproduce. But our actual ancestors did not die, else, we wouldn't be here. So those of us AMH's with Eurasian heritage, very well might not be here, if some of our ancestors had not conjugated with Neanderthals.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/how-europeans-evolved-to-have-white-skin-starting-from-around-8000-years-ago-10160120.html There is another path that is less talked about. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140714100122.htm Note, in the book - Man, His Nature and Place in the World By Arnold Gehlen it is stated “Knrad Lorenz explored domestication in great depth. His thesis that domestication played a crucial role in the evolution of man has been widely accepted." So, what changed? Everything, due to WWII. From Wikipedia. Konrad Zacharias Lorenz (German pronunciation: [ˈkɔnat ˈloɛnts]; 7 November 1903 – 27 February 1989) was an Austrian zoologist, ethologist, and ornithologist. He shared the 1973 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine with Nikolaas Tinbergen and Karl von Frisch. He is often regarded as one of the founders of modern ethology… Point being, if you understand how domestication has worked with animals it is easy to see those traits in man. Konrad was a man who knew about the domestication of animals and guess what? He made that connection of how it effected man and it got him into a lot of trouble after the Nazi's lost power. Just another piece for the puzzle. :-)