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. What a sweet talking boy! You came to me telling that you read the article, I proved to you that you did not and now you are cross, am I right boy? And now quote me telling that Homo sapiens sapiens started out white. What I said was that those who migrated from South Africa 60k years ago were members of the white race, and that is what the reports by the geneticists inform. So, my opinion is that those around here are fond of inquiry as long as they are not forced to study the subject they pretend to be interested about. :lol:
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. What is a mental construct is racism (an invention of the racists of the white race) and not race. Be a realist! Your genome is different from that of a person of a different race and so are the sutures of the bones of your brain case, your denture, the thickness of your bones, the broadness of your nose and lips, the arrangement of your toes, the connections in your brain, etc. etc. That is how human races are, but it goes without saying that they deserve equal treatment.
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. :-) Yeah, more possible puzzle pieces. I can see how humans turn to agriculture could promote a kind of "self taming", in that a hyper "fight or flight", bio-mechanism would not be as necessary for survival, than for pure hunter-gatherers. And perhaps other social and technological advances, made an intense "fight or flight" response, less necessary, as well. Also, clearly, animals that are bred based on their lack of fearfulness of humans, do have physical changes that seem ancillary. So could lighter skin in humans have been promoted, ancillary, to this "neural crest" phenomenon? Maybe. It's worth considering, I think. Of course, one would ask, if this caused lightening of skin color in humans, why hasn't it applied more broadly. i.e., AFAIK, people, today, with dark skin, in general, do not have a more intense "fight or flight" response, than people with lighter skin.
...And now quote me telling that Homo sapiens sapiens started out white...Here are some quotes of yours from your very 1st response in this thread, topic "Is white skin an aberration?": "No human race evolved out of another human race..." "That the members of the white race started c. 60k y.a. from South Africa, reached the Middle East where they killed the Neaderthals there and by 40k y.a. they commenced arriving to Europe where they also exterminated the European Nenderthals..." "...From Europe they spread all over the world killing as many as they could, but they only managed to exterminate entirely just the Tasmanians. In the meantime they had established the academy which was informing the suckers the world over that it was the black Africans who had exterminated the Near Eastern and European Nenanderthals and that the white guys appeared as innocent angels a few thousand years ago." Now, perhaps, you are claiming, that what you meant, all along, is that the "white race", you were referencing was a race of people who eventually became white skinned. Okay. If that's it, I guess that is progress. But you should also consider how calling the white race, the white race, before they were white, can be confusing. In light of your thoughts re: this "white race", perhaps it would have provided more clarity to call them the "murdering and deceptive race" who just happened to become white skinned.
The UV theory is probably correct, essentially......There is another path that is less talked about..... Yeah, more possible puzzle pieces. I can see how humans turn to agriculture could promote a kind of "self taming", in that a hyper "fight or flight", bio-mechanism would not be as necessary for survival, than for pure hunter-gatherers. And perhaps other social and technological advances, made an intense "fight or flight" response, less necessary, as well. Also, clearly, animals that are bred based on their lack of fearfulness of humans, do have physical changes that seem ancillary. So could lighter skin in humans have been promoted, ancillary, to this "neural crest" phenomenon? Maybe. It's worth considering, I think. Of course, one would ask, if this caused lightening of skin color in humans, why hasn't it applied more broadly. i.e., AFAIK, people, today, with dark skin, in general, do not have a more intense "fight or flight" response, than people with lighter skin. The common denominator over time and well agreed upon in the domestication data is that you have the natural wild, then have domesticated or tame. Taming seems to be a trait of domestication. I thought it would be more on the selective breeding that caused the taming, but the experts see it differently. The new data on the taming relates that to the chemical unbalancing, hormones and that sort of stuff, caused by domestication. As far as fighting, the Rig Veda talks about seven times the population grew and then was greatly reduced by epidemics like plagues and natural disasters, but no wars. I think the religion before the Age of Deities pretty much prevented wars. Just like some of the religions today that came from the main branch of religion ideas, Buddha and Hinduism for example. The “fight or flight" response. That’s a piece of the puzzle that you set to the side until you get more pieces that connect. Or we could use the UV response, the diet is different. :lol:
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.
No, there is no test that can detect ethnicity or heritage. Lineage can be detected through DNA, but only of the DNA is available from anyone who is dead, which becomes harder and harder with every year that passes. So DNA is used mostly to detect lineage in living people.
“If a test-taker is just interested in finding out where there are some people in the world that share the same DNA as them, then these tests can certainly tell them that,” said Deborah Bolnick of the University of Texas in Austin. “But they’re not going to tell you every place or every group in the world where people share your DNA. Nor will they necessarily be able to tell you exactly where your ancestors lived or [what race or social group] they identified with.”
The whole article is worth reading if you are interested in the actual science of DNA rather than hype.
They can detect Neanderthal DNA in people.
Yes, that’s true because they know what Neanderthal DNA
looks like.–and it’s different from human DNA. but DNA can’t detect race or ethnicity. Humans of all races have the same basic DNA. No differences in DNA have been detected that would differentiate different races.
You can send out for your own personal DNA test to determine ethnic lineage.
It doesn’t detect ethnicity in itself. It only tells where certain aspects of DNA is most prevalent. It doesn’t actually detect ethnicity.
If you can find a valid scientific paper on DNA that claims to detect race or ethnicity, please present it.
If the DNA of individuals of any “race” or ethnicity are examined, no scientist can detect the difference between them. They cannot say which “race” the DNA represents nor ethnicity.
It doesn't detect ethnicity in itself. It only tells where certain aspects of your DNA is most prevalent. It doesn't actually detect ethnicity.First you define what "ethnicity" is. Your definition, or the one you refer to.
It doesn't detect ethnicity in itself. It only tells where certain aspects of your DNA is most prevalent. It doesn't actually detect ethnicity.First you define what "ethnicity" is. Your definition, or the one you refer to. Whatever definition you used when you made the statement that DNA can detect ethnicity. Ethnicity is as much a human construct as race is. Ethnicity by any definition doesn't show up in DNA any more than race does. If you think it does please present a valid (peer reviewed) scientific paper that makes and supports that claim.
Whatever definition you used when you made the statement that DNA can detect ethnicity. Ethnicity is as much a human construct as race is. Ethnicity by any definition doesn't show up in DNA any more than race does. If you think it does please present a valid (peer reviewed) scientific paper that makes and supports that claim.Ok, my definition would be this Lois. And this is contextually specific to our discussion here. There are many other acceptable uses of the word ethnicity. Like cultural heritage for example. One sort of common denominator of ethnicity is that it is generally inherited. So customs, morals, religion, values, etc can all be part of an ethnicity. But, on to our contextually focused definition of ethnicity in regards to this topic. Ethnicity in one factor can be the commonly inherited DNA/Genetic Traits that are found to be shared in general by specific population groups. These Genetic traits are testable and can be valuable in tracing backwards the evolutionary and/or timeline migration of humans throughout history. These Genetic traits/DNA are testable today in all humans and can be used with high degrees of accuracy to test these inheritable ethnic lineages found in all people. Scientists involved with this mapping note that the constantly migrating humans have conglomerated many of these traits as the timeline moves forward. One advantage of scientists in research is to conduct mapping studies on population groups that have had little or no contact with outside groups. Most scientists will readily admit the social-political difficulties that they have encountered with this type of research. This last part is what is evident in your posts Lois. The actual thing is, it's just simple objective science. So in conclusion, as far as an ethnicity can be defined genetically, there are tests which can 100% determine in part or in whole ethnic traits within any individual. Of course if the word "ethnicity" is too polemic that's fine. I agree.
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. What is a mental construct is racism (an invention of the racists of the white race) and not race. Be a realist! Your genome is different from that of a person of a different race and so are the sutures of the bones of your brain case, your denture, the thickness of your bones, the broadness of your nose and lips, the arrangement of your toes, the connections in your brain, etc. etc. That is how human races are, but it goes without saying that they deserve equal treatment. There is only one human race. You'll never admit you are wrong, Dimities, but for those reading this with open minds: Modern Human Variations]
In the final analysis, it is important to keep in mind that all humans around the world today are biologically quite similar despite our superficial differences. In fact, we apparently are 99.9% genetically identical. Most of the differences between us are due to our unique individual traits and being male or female. When we are compared to many other kinds of animals, it is remarkable how little variation exists within our own species. There is 2-3 times more genetic variation among chimpanzees, 8-10 times more among orangutans, and thousands of times more in many insect species. Most biological anthropologists would agree that human variation is not now sufficient to warrant defining separate biological races, varieties, or sub-species. However, it very likely was in our distant prehistoric past.If you have any science that disputes this I would be interested in seeing it.
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. What is a mental construct is racism (an invention of the racists of the white race) and not race. Be a realist! Your genome is different from that of a person of a different race and so are the sutures of the bones of your brain case, your denture, the thickness of your bones, the broadness of your nose and lips, the arrangement of your toes, the connections in your brain, etc. etc. That is how human races are, but it goes without saying that they deserve equal treatment. I was talking about DNA. Not all people of other "races" have those characteristics. The point is that people identify race by appearance. But there is no such biological thing as race. A black person, an Asian, a white person, a mixed race person all have the same DNA. That was my point. How we think of race is a mental construct based on color and other visual characteristics. It is not biological. There are people whose race cannot be identified visually. How would you know who to discriminate against by "race" if you can't see differentiating characteristics? You might actually treat someone kindly who is of a "race" you've decided you hate. Then what? You'd be up the creek without a paddle.
A black person, an Asian, a white person, a mixed race person all have the same DNA.We'll call all of those people mixed race. Blacks, Asians, Whites, whatever... They're all mixed. However you need to stop with this anti-science garbage Lois. We all don't have the same DNA. Otherwise all the DNA evidence that has been used in court would have to be thrown out. Two white guys do not have the same DNA.
Modern Human Variations]Too much in-breeding, if you ask me. Whatever happened to the good old (really old) days, when a red blooded homo sapien could breed with a Neanderthal or Densovian or some other mystery human?In the final analysis, it is important to keep in mind that all humans around the world today are biologically quite similar despite our superficial differences. In fact, we apparently are 99.9% genetically identical. Most of the differences between us are due to our unique individual traits and being male or female. When we are compared to many other kinds of animals, it is remarkable how little variation exists within our own species. There is 2-3 times more genetic variation among chimpanzees, 8-10 times more among orangutans, and thousands of times more in many insect species. Most biological anthropologists would agree that human variation is not now sufficient to warrant defining separate biological races, varieties, or sub-species. However, it very likely was in our distant prehistoric past.
Has anyone posted this yet:
I think Bill hit the nail on the head with his assertion. We are after all descended from the same Homo Sapiens group that survived the bottleneck ca. 55,000 ya. Our physical differences are subtle anyway.
Cap’t Jack
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/how-europeans-evolved-to-have-white-skin-starting-from-around-8000-years-ago-10160120.htmlI think you're jumping to conclusions too fast, Mike. This article doesn't say anything about the vitamin D theory being wrong, its saying there were scattered groups of dark skinned humans in prehistoric Europe (they obviously didn't last long--likely because they were dark skinned).
There is another path that is less talked about. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140714100122.htmInteresting. We know that agriculture played a part in selection for light skin, and that agricultural/industrial societies are more complex then hunter-gatherer societies - there probably is some truth to the "tameness" hypothesis.
A black person, an Asian, a white person, a mixed race person all have the same DNA.We'll call all of those people mixed race. Blacks, Asians, Whites, whatever... They're all mixed. However you need to stop with this anti-science garbage Lois. We all don't have the same DNA. Otherwise all the DNA evidence that has been used in court would have to be thrown out. Two white guys do not have the same DNA. There is nothing in anyone's DNA that would detect race. You are moving the goalposts. I never said or implied that everyone's DNA isn't different from everyone else's. That is not the point I was making. I said there are no DNA markers that show race or ethnicity. If you think there are, please present scientifically valid evidence to that effect. . "Scientists have long suspected that the racial categories recognized by society are not reflected on the genetic level. "But the more closely that researchers examine the human genome -- the complement of genetic material encased in the heart of almost every cell of the body -- the more most of them are convinced that the standard labels used to distinguish people by "race" have little or no biological meaning. "They say that while it may seem easy to tell at a glance whether a person is Caucasian, African or Asian, the ease dissolves when one probes beneath surface characteristics and scans the genome for DNA hallmarks of "race." "As it turns out, scientists say, the human species is so evolutionarily young, and its migratory patterns so wide, restless and rococo, that it has simply not had a chance to divide itself into separate biological groups or "races" in any but the most superficial ways. "Race is a social concept, not a scientific one," said Dr J. Craig Venter, head of the Celera Genomics Corporation in Rockville, Md. "We all evolved in the last 100,000 years from the same small number of tribes that migrated out of Africa and colonized the world." "Dr. Venter and scientists at the National Institutes of Health recently announced that they had put together a draft of the entire sequence of the human genome, and the researchers had unanimously declared, there is only one race -- the human race." https://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/science/082200sci-genetics-race.html The whole article is worth reading. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics If you have scientific evidence that disputes this, please present it.
If the DNA of individuals of any "race" or ethnicity are examined, no scientist can detect the difference between them. They cannot say which "race" the DNA represents nor ethnicity.They can: http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/news/nr/dna-sat-nav-gps-tool-find-your-ancestors-home-1.370846 http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140429/ncomms4513/full/ncomms4513.html
There is a huge difference between geographic origins and race, MA. You are misinterpreting what the scientists said in the Nature article you linked. See the article I linked, and the relevant paragraph I quoted, in post #69].
Most biological anthropologists would agree that human variation is not now sufficient to warrant defining separate biological races, varieties, or sub-species. However, it very likely was in our distant prehistoric past.You're not following the evidence, you have reached a conclusion and are ignoring evidence that contradicts your beliefs.
. 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. LoisActually, albinism is more common in Africans than in any other world population. They are also more common in African American populations than white American populations. Not because they are easier to spot, surprisingly, it is not that difficult. When an African American family has an albino born to them, especially if there is no other known (to them) history of albinism in the family, we make sure they get counseling. When you have an infant, you expect it to bear some resemblance to you. Albinism in the African-American community is about as 'not me' as you can get, especially in a dark skinned family. The southern part of Africa, especially around Zimbabwe, has the largest concentration of albinos in the world, and not surprisingly, they have short life spans. If they do not succumb to local superstitions (for which they are killed, and sometimes eaten--ugh), they also usually die of cancer by their 30s. In parts of Zimbabwe, there are entire families of albinos.
There is a huge difference between geographic origins and race, MA. You are misinterpreting what the scientists said in the Nature article you linked. See the article I linked, and the relevant paragraph I quoted, in post #69].My DNA testing tells me the geographic locations of people who have DNA matching mine, and in my case, they come from pretty much all over the world. And it tells me where they are at this point in history. Because it is where humans evolved, people in Africa are the most diverse in the world. I think it was an injustice to label our huge trees with the single letters 'L' and 'E' when clearly they are the largest in the world by far. African Americans, because of the past history of enslavement (and rape) are probably the most diverse population in the USA. We are a single species. We were not separated long enough to separate into different species. We evolve toward survival, if we are lucky. Traits that make you live just a little bit longer in the prevailing conditions, tend to propagate if not flourish. The flip side of fair skinned whites getting sunburned and skin cancers under the hot sun, are dark skinned peoples developing rickets in northern climates.Most biological anthropologists would agree that human variation is not now sufficient to warrant defining separate biological races, varieties, or sub-species. However, it very likely was in our distant prehistoric past.You're not following the evidence, you have reached a conclusion and are ignoring evidence that contradicts your beliefs.