Race mixture,To rich the next stage in human development.

[Marblehead]

But the environment of Northern people features much much less sun exposure than that of tropical or temperate.

It seems to me that it would be just the opposite.  The colder climates would want the darker skin color in order to absorb more heat from the sun and Africans would have a lighter skin to reflect the sun's heat.

[Marblehead]

Muslim women usually don't date non-Muslims. But apart from that I like your theory .

You apparently didn't work her properly.

[Marblehead]

 

People should have children with whomever they choose. I'd love to see more people reaching across borders for love, proving just how meaningless all these self-imposed categories really are. But as we are all basically the same, "race mixture" isn't going to create some super-breed.

I think I would turn down a Bigfoot woman.  All that hair would be nasty.

[Marblehead]

http://newobserveronline.com/dna-and-race-tibetans-inherited-high-altitude-gene-from-ancient-race/

I call that environmentally forced genetic mutation.

[Nungali]

I thought I would see how much confusion I can add to this thread.

....

The reason Neanderthal DNA is so minute in Africans is because none of the Africans who left ever wanted to go back to Africa.

 

What about Joseph ? 

[Marblehead]

....

 

What about Joseph ? 

Joseph who?  I know a Joe but no Josephs.

[dust]

Actually, most Africans contain no Neanderthal DNA, as opposed to everyone else in the world.

 

I'm not contesting that. But this does not separate and "Africans" and "All others" into separate "races". It does nothing to demonstrate a clear and universal division between "Europeans" or "Asians" and "Africans".

 

The Neanderthals were a separate class of human -- an actual separate "race". If I share 1% of their DNA, does that make me a separate class along with them?

 

One could take a population sample from Sweden and another from Kenya and describe each population, in terms of DNA, in quite different ways. But samples taken from Algeria, or Greece, or Croatia, will probably lie somewhere in between -- exactly where would you like to draw the line? Everyone with remnants of Neanderthal DNA makes up one race, and everyone else another? So Europeans and Aboriginal Australians and Chinese and Indians etc are all the same race, only Africans set apart? I'm the same race as Vladamir Putin, or Mao Zedong, even though geographically and genetically I'm probably closer to a Spaniard, who's closer to a Tunisian, who's closer to a Nigerian...?

 

If I add a drop of yellow to a big bucket of red paint, does it turn into ice cream?

[Marblehead]

The Neanderthals were a separate class of human -- an actual separate "race". If I share 1% of their DNA, does that make me a separate class along with them?

I'm glad you phrased that the way you did.  They were not, based on recent science, a separate species because they inter-bred.  Bigfoot would likely be a separate species.

[dust]

Some broad generalizations can be made though. I for example have a skin disease that mostly white folks get - especially those of Celtic or North European stock. It's almost impossible for black people to get it.

 

Sure, we can describe people in terms of physical and physiological characteristics; we can describe people in terms of their differences. And I have not argued that specific populations do not share certain characteristics; clearly they do. I'm not denying ancestry, I'm not trying to suggest that all humans are exactly the same.

 

 

 

I agree that race is not always a 100% clear categorical function. But some broad generalizations can be made. Skin color, facial features, height and so on.

 

No, it is never a clear categorical function. The whole point of the concept of race was to categorize humans into clear groups based on phenotype. This is, as all competent scientists agree, impossible nonsense.

 

If it floats your boat, you can generalize. All white people have less melanin than all black people. All white people are tall? All white people have light eyes? All white people enjoy the music of Frank Sinatra? All white people love to subjugate and murder foreigners?

[voidisyinyang]

It seems to me that it would be just the opposite.  The colder climates would want the darker skin color in order to absorb more heat from the sun and Africans would have a lighter skin to reflect the sun's heat.

 

Melanin as a pigment is also found in mushrooms which I studied in terms of radiation.

 

Melanin works by both absorbing as black color and refracting the UV radiation (and other radiation) - by doing so the melanin then converts the UV radiation into electrochemical energy for cellular function.

 

White skin in contrast does not reflect light at all - instead is just lacks the pigment and this is because the diet of wheat monoculture lacks Vitamin D.

 

For example people living far North do have swarthy skin like the Innuit and the Welsh and Finns - but the reason why is because they're diet was not wheat monoculture but instead mainly fish-based or hunting meat organs both of which have lots of Vitamin D.

 

So actually the original Europeans were Africans but what happened is that some Africans have blue eyes due to albinism - albino genes - and a bit lighter skin. Normally being albino is not adaptive but the African-Europeans in Scandinavia were adapted to being albino - and so that is the cause of blue eyes being more common in Sweden - it's actually from African albinos genes.

 

My blog gives lots of details and the references to back up all this science.

[voidisyinyang]

Re:

-----

"7000 generations back were all literally cousins from a few thousand maybe 5000 who survived mt. Toba explosion 70000 bce. So we're all african. White skin is from wheat monoculture malnutrition lack of vita d starting 10000 years ago. Blue eyes is african albino gene favored in low light scandinavia. So is green eyes which i have. But white skin has spread north where it hit sweden 5000 years ago. Dna of skeletons has confirmed all of this. I got the references on my blog. So chimps and bonobos are way more diverse genetically than humans. The bushmen are original source of modern humans but split off 125000 years ago. Bushmen also source of spirit training."

-----

 

There were more than 5000 humans on Earth after the Toba eruption.

 

Mt. Toba eruption doesn't mean we're all African - these ideas aren't even connected.

 

Vitamin D is not a dietary substance, but a hormone we make in the skin and liver in response to sun exposure.

 

The diet of Northern people is very high in animal fats, which contain the vitamin D the animal synthesized from sun exposure.

 

But the environment of Northern people features much much less sun exposure than that of tropical or temperate.

 

 

Just pointing out that these statements/conclusions in the quote at the top are really just speculations.

 

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

 

Yeah we had this debate before.

 

See I told people to check out my links.

 

You instead have ignored the data I've presented.

 

It's not speculation - it's DNA - new DNA analysis.

 

So now since you have made false accusations without engaging with the data I have an excuse to actually present the data.

 

I've done this already with you on this forum so I'm not just gonna repeat my work.

 

I remember I called You Von Cracker-house as my joke against you ignoring the data.

 

So all I needed to do was google von cracker-house.

 

You got my joke right? Cracker being a U.S. derogatory term for white skin.

 

 

In the case of skin color, the team speculates that these populations, which represented early farmers, had previously received a lot of vitamin D from their food, such as vitamin D-rich fish and animal livers, when they were hunter-gatherers. But after the advent of farming, when grains such as wheat and barley became a major part of their dinner plates, early Europeans needed to synthesize a larger amount of vitamin D in their skins. That’s when lightening up became very advantageous. The study “provides evidence that loss of regular dietary vitamin D as a result of the transition to a more strongly agricultural lifestyle may have triggered” the evolution of lighter skin, says Nina Jablonski, a leading skin color researcher at Pennsylvania State University, University Park.

 

http://news.sciencemag.org/archaeology/2014/03/new-diet-sexual-attraction-may-have-spurred-europeans-lighter-skin

 

And see all the people who agreed with your false logic? That just shows how much racism still exists for white people.

 

 

 

In addition, the researchers found that the La Brana hunter-gather was lactose intolerant and not able to digest starchy food as well as Neolithic farmers, "supporting the hypotheses that these abilities were selected for during the later transition to agriculture," the authors wrote in their study.

Read more: http://www.businessi...1#ixzz3ZYE4jTMX

 

My guess is that someone in China eating millet before rice - most likely also ate a lot of fish and meat organs, like a millet eater in AFrica.

 

But a potato eater in the Andes isn't eating much fish or meat organs - hence the relatively white skin of people from the Andes. haha.

 

http://www.dailymail...ts-changed.html

 

and

 

http://www.businessi...ark-skin-2014-1

 

 

Quote

 

Johan Moan, of the university's Institute of Physics, said in a research paper: ‘In England, from 5,500-5,200 years ago the food changed rapidly away from fish as an important food source. This led to a rapid development of ... light skin.’

Read more:

http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz3ZYF2keRx

Follow us:

@MailOnline on Twitter

|

DailyMail on Facebook

 

and so the white people in India - from wheat farming Brahmins:

 

Quote

But in India, the prevalence of the gene in different populations didn't correlate with latitude, but instead seemed strongly linked to language, geography and demographic history. The study also showed that the gene was positively selected for in North, but not South India (though both light- and dark-skinned people live in both regions).

It's not clear exactly what caused the gene to be favored in certain regions, but it probably wasn't the production of vitamin D alone, the study suggests.

 

http://www.livescien...fied-india.html

 

 

Quote

 

The Mesolithic period, or Middle Stone Age was followed by the Neolithic era, when hunter-gatherers became farmers and started eating a lot more grains.

This dietary switch could be the reason Europeans developed lighter skin.

"In the food-production theory, the cereal-rich diet of Neolithic farmers lacked vitamin D,"

LiveScience explains

, "so Europeans rapidly lost their dark-skin pigmentation only once they switched to agriculture, because it was only at that point that they had to synthesize vitamin D from the sun more readily."

Read more:

http://www.businessi...1#ixzz3ZYFdWYU5

 

I actually do the research for you and presto! YOu're disproven! Hilarious!

 

http://www.susunweed...y05/empower.htm

 

So it's not just fish but also animal organs that have vitamin D as I already stated.

 

Quote

The two major forms are vitamin D

2

and vitamin D

3

.

Vitamin D

2

(ergocalciferol) is largely human-made and added to foods, whereas vitamin D

3

(cholecalciferol) is synthesized in the skin of humans from 7-dehydrocholesterol and is also consumed in the diet via the intake of animal-based foods. Both vitamin D

3

and vitamin D

2

are synthesized commercially and found in dietary supplements or fortified foods. The D

2

and D

3

forms differ only in their side chain structure.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....books/NBK56061/

[voidisyinyang]

By comparing key parts of the DNA across the genomes of 83 ancient individuals from archaeological sites throughout Europe, the international team of researchers reported earlier this year that Europeans today are a mix of the blending of at least three ancient populations of hunter-gatherers and farmers who moved into Europe in separate migrations over the past 8000 years. The study revealed that a

massive migration of Yamnaya herders from the steppes north of the Black Sea may have brought Indo-European languages to Europe

about 4500 years ago.

 

Now, a new study from the same team drills down further into that remarkable data to search for genes that were under strong natural selection–including traits so favorable that they spread rapidly throughout Europe in the past 8000 years. By comparing the ancient European genomes with those of recent ones from the 1000 Genomes Project, population geneticist Iain Mathieson, a postdoc in the Harvard University lab of population geneticist David Reich, found five genes associated with changes in diet and skin pigmentation that underwent strong natural selection.

 

http://www.amren.com...ved-white-skin/

[voidisyinyang]

And the new data confirm that about 8500 years ago, early hunter-gatherers in Spain, Luxembourg, and Hungary also had darker skin: They lacked versions of two genes–

SLC24A5

and

SLC45A2–

that lead to depigmentation and, therefore, pale skin in Europeans today.

 

O.K. I did discover a correction - the hunter-gatherers of SOUTHERN Sweden (while the more northern latitude Swami still had darker skin from their fish diet!) did originally have white skin but the hunter-gathers of Central and Southern Europe were dark skin in contrast to the light skin farmers from the Middle East:

 

 

 

 

Quote

Seven people from the 7700-year-old Motala archaeological site in southern Sweden had both light skin gene variants,

SLC24A5

and

SLC45A2

. They also had a third gene,

HERC2/OCA2

, which causes blue eyes and may also contribute to light skin and blond hair. Thus ancient hunter-gatherers of the far north were already pale and blue-eyed, but those of central and southern Europe had darker skin.

Then, the first farmers from the Near East arrived in Europe; they carried both genes for light skin. As they interbred with the indigenous hunter-gatherers, one of their light-skin genes swept through Europe, so that central and southern Europeans also began to have lighter skin. The other gene variant,

SLC45A2

, was at low levels until about 5800 years ago when it swept up to high frequency.

 

http://news.sciencem...t&utm_src=email

[voidisyinyang]

The mutation affected the so-called OCA2 gene, which is involved in the production of melanin, the pigment that gives color to our hair, eyes and skin.

Quote

"A genetic mutation affecting the OCA2 gene in our chromosomes resulted in the creation of a 'switch,' which literally 'turned off' the ability to produce brown eyes," Eiberg said.

 

The genetic switch is located in the gene adjacent to OCA2 and rather than completely turning off the gene, the switch limits its action, which reduces the production of melanin in the iris. In effect, the turned-down switch diluted brown eyes to blue.

If the OCA2 gene had been completely shut down, our hair, eyes and skin would be melanin-less, a condition known as albinism.

 

http://www.livescien...-blue-eyes.html

[voidisyinyang]

In Scandinavia the Sami are darker than the peoples to the south, and the Inuit are generally a light brown skinned people. It seems that the fairest peoples in the world reside around the shores of the Baltic sea, not in the circumpolar regions.

 

and

 

 

Quote

In short, Sweet argues that the diets of pre-farming peoples were richer in meats and fish which provided sufficient Vitamin D so that skin color was likely light brown as opposed to pink. But with the spread of agriculture Vitamin D disappeared from the diets of northern European peoples and so only by reducing their melanin levels could they produce sufficient amounts of this nutrient to keep at bay the deleterious consequences of deficiencies. This explains why the Sami, who never adopted agriculture, remained darker. One could hypothesize that the relative swarthiness of groups like the Welsh might be due to greater reliance on fish and game as opposed to agriculture, but the point is not to explain every last detail but to clarify the overall trend.

Sweet’s essay was written in 2002. In 2005 a gene,

SLC24A5

, was implicated in explaining a large proportion (25-38%) of the between population difference in skin color for Europeans and Africans. It seems that on this locus the two populations were disjoint, they exhibited no substantial overlap. In European it seems that

6 to 10 thousand

years ago a new variant arose which subsequently swept to fixation. In the model above it seems likely that the mutation was just there at “the right place and right time.” Interestingly in East Asians

SLC24A5

exhibits the same sequence as it does in Africans. But, it seems that other loci are responsible for the lightening of the skin of East Asians recently as well, though not to the same extent as Europeans. The reason for this is likely the fact that temperate East Asia as at a far lower latitude than Europe.

 

http://blogs.discove...e/#.VU1S7EZjcxI

 

So yeah it's a mixture of diet and latitude - but definitely the far north swarthy cultures are so because of their fish diet - going against the latitude. But then the AFrican blue eyes albinism spread into far North and even though it had a darker skin - when it cross bred with the white wheat farmers - then the recessive light skin gene became dominant - and presto! instead of white skin brown people you get white skin blue-eyed people in Scandinavia.

 

Pretty fascinating.

[voidisyinyang]

I'm not.

 

Yeah the kind of racist reaction I get from basic science that we're all African is people define themselves by nationality or else say they don't live in a tree eating bananas.

 

 

It may also be possible that such a disaster never happened in the first place — genetic research suggests modern humans descend from a single population of a few thousand survivors of a calamity, but another possible explanation is that modern humans descend from a few groups that left Africa at different times.

 

So yeah 7000 generations back your family left Africa and our ancesters were cousins.

 

http://www.livescience.com/29130-toba-supervolcano-effects.html

 

So it wasn't Mt. Toba that caused the human genetic bottleneck - but it could have been some other catastrophe.

 

 

An ancient European hunter-gatherer man had dark skin and blue eyes, a new genetic analysis has revealed.

 

And 7000 years ago your ancestors had African dark skin.

 

Maybe more recent if you're from Sweden - 5000 years ago.

 

https://6000generations.wordpress.com/2014/01/27/light-skin-genes-in-europe-less-than-7000-years-old/

 

 

“It has been assumed that it is something that happens in response to going from Africa to higher latitudes where the UV radiation is very low and you need to synthesise vitamin D in your skin. Your skin becomes lighter quite soon,” explained Dr Lalueza-Fox.

“It is obvious that this is not the case, because this guy has been in Europe for 40,000 years and he still has dark skin.” …..

[Perceiver]

Sure, we can describe people in terms of physical and physiological characteristics; we can describe people in terms of their differences. And I have not argued that specific populations do not share certain characteristics; clearly they do. I'm not denying ancestry, I'm not trying to suggest that all humans are exactly the same.

 

 

 

 

No, it is never a clear categorical function. The whole point of the concept of race was to categorize humans into clear groups based on phenotype. This is, as all competent scientists agree, impossible nonsense.

 

If it floats your boat, you can generalize. All white people have less melanin than all black people. All white people are tall? All white people have light eyes? All white people enjoy the music of Frank Sinatra? All white people love to subjugate and murder foreigners?

 

I have a feeling you just don't like the idea of a "race". Some people just don't like that differences exist among people, and will go out of their way to explain away the race concept, gender differences or why one culture is more successful than another. But just because you don't like it it can still be true.

 

I happen to be quite at peace with the fact that there are differences among people. And just because it's not PC, races still do exist. The ethnic group that I belong to for example shares chromosomes and genetics with Germanian tribes mostly. Or look at it this way: How many ethnic Swedes look Asian or African? And by the way, generalizing is a necessary aspect of life. Everyone generalizes. If they didn't they would end up as blabbering relativists who would never get from point A to point B.

 

Ah well, I fear this debate could degenerate quickly. I also fear I have some part in that with my provocative statements above. Somehow I also think that you and I probably agree more than I've expressed with my above jabs, since you actually acknowledge ethnic differences. Maybe we're just arguing where to place a few commas in the race debate.. Sorry if the opening lines came out too strong - perhaps I needed to state a few things. Perhaps because you ended your post with a "white people love to subjugate and murder foreigners"? Yep, that was it. I answered a provocation with a provocation of my own. So much for enlightenment .

 

Peace

[Marblehead]

Your last sentence gave me a chuckle.