Post: #26

(11-04-2013 12:27 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(11-04-2013 12:13 PM)scandibro Wrote:  

(11-04-2013 09:22 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  Caucasians evolved out of Africans originally. Perhaps we are now getting to see with our eyes in real time the genetic mutations that led to the white race.

I guess this means African DNA is robust enough to produce people with Nordic features. However European DNA couldn't produce black African features.

The white race has significant neanderthal DNA, the only race who has it. Perhaps this explains the siginificant variation in hair color and eye color compared to other races.

Not likely. East Asians have more neanderthal DNA than whites and they only have black hair and eyes. I wouldn't say the amounts are all that significant, we're talking 1-4%.

http://m.genetics.org/content/early/2013...8213.short

Edit - -

^^^ That neanderthal woman is a definite 2/10 WNB!

No, East Asians have 0% neanderthal DNA. They have a different kind of admixture with Denisovan hominids, but they have nothing in common with neanderthals.

Post: #27

(11-04-2013 10:05 AM)kdolo Wrote:  

(11-04-2013 09:22 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  Caucasians evolved out of Africans originally. Perhaps we are now getting to see with our eyes in real time the genetic mutations that led to the white race.

I guess this means African DNA is robust enough to produce people with Nordic features. However European DNA couldn't produce black African features.

Exactly on the money.

African DNA produces all the others. Therefore, totally African parents can create a white blue eyed baby - a stated another way - a baby with genetic recessive characteristics as opposed to the genetic dominant characteristics of the parents. All it takes is the expression of mutations.

This is exactly how the first "whites" came about. The first "whites" had black parents.

This isn't likely to be how the first "whites" came about. This is likely just a quirk of genetic mutation(pretty interesting too) but it's not how Europeans evolved to have light skin complexions. The vast majority of Europeans are descended from people who migrated out of the Middle East thousands of years ago and then gradually lightened over hundreds to thousands of years by a vitamin D deficiency(Northern Europe being the only region that far north where large-scale agriculture could take hold). The lack of sunlight + the lack of vitamin D in Northern Euro diets due to their reliance on agriculture caused their skin to become pale to compensate. Lighter skin was an advantageous adaptation in the region as those with vitamin D deficiencies could end up with rickets and other problems. Inuits, Northern Asians, and North American Indians on the other hand don't have pale skin despite living at the same latitudes for one reason: They all had primarily hunter-gatherer diets where they received enough daily vitamin D from meat.

Post: #28

Dude, just Google "Asians + neanderthal DNA". All the evidence in the world is right there. Even Native Americans have inherited some by way of E Asian migration.

Post: #29

Here you go

Post: #30

Post: #31

(11-04-2013 10:05 AM)kdolo Wrote:  

(11-04-2013 09:22 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  Caucasians evolved out of Africans originally. Perhaps we are now getting to see with our eyes in real time the genetic mutations that led to the white race.

I guess this means African DNA is robust enough to produce people with Nordic features. However European DNA couldn't produce black African features.

Exactly on the money.

African DNA produces all the others. Therefore, totally African parents can create a white blue eyed baby - a stated another way - a baby with genetic recessive characteristics as opposed to the genetic dominant characteristics of the parents. All it takes is the expression of mutations.

This is exactly how the first "whites" came about. The first "whites" had black parents.

Since I am bored in class... cladistics PSA/filibuster:

Modern day Europeans and modern day Africans share (a) common ancestor(s) who happened to live in Africa. This does not mean that modern African DNA "produces" all others. Both modern day Europeans and modern day Africans have evolved since this/these ancestor(s). Modern African DNA is not a superset of DNA elsewhere, as per the aforementioned evolution that has occurred since the ancestral split.

Europeans evolving from Africans is the same line of reasoning historical racists have used at times to justify the regarding of Africans as lesser beings. Racist or "racist" doesn't mean it's necessarily incorrect (ad hominem, etc.), but in this case it is indeed fallacious. Modern Europeans "came" from modern Africans no more than birds came from crocodiles--they merely share the same ancestor.

This is before we even get to intra-Africa cladistics and genetic diversity, a discussion I find tedious because people usually conflate African with black/Sub-Saharan African. For what it's worth--Sub-Saharan Africans are typically found to be more closely related to Europeans than to Bushmen. Northern Africans are typically found to be more closely related to Europeans than they are to Sub-Saharan Africans.

Post: #32

(11-04-2013 12:41 PM)scandibro Wrote:  

(11-04-2013 12:27 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(11-04-2013 12:13 PM)scandibro Wrote:  

(11-04-2013 09:22 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  Caucasians evolved out of Africans originally. Perhaps we are now getting to see with our eyes in real time the genetic mutations that led to the white race.

I guess this means African DNA is robust enough to produce people with Nordic features. However European DNA couldn't produce black African features.

The white race has significant neanderthal DNA, the only race who has it. Perhaps this explains the siginificant variation in hair color and eye color compared to other races.

Not likely. East Asians have more neanderthal DNA than whites and they only have black hair and eyes. I wouldn't say the amounts are all that significant, we're talking 1-4%.

http://m.genetics.org/content/early/2013...8213.short

Edit - -

^^^ That neanderthal woman is a definite 2/10 WNB!

No, East Asians have 0% neanderthal DNA. They have a different kind of admixture with Denisovan hominids, but they have nothing in common with neanderthals.

It is Melanesians and Australoids that have material Denisovan admixture. East Asians have comparable degrees of Neanderthal admixture as Europeans--I have seen both claims of slightly more and slightly less--on my phone, else I'd do some quick Googling.

Post: #33

A lot of blasphemous talk goin on round here.

Post: #34

[ The lack of sunlight + the lack of vitamin D in Northern Euro diets due to their reliance on agriculture caused their skin to become pale to compensate...... Lighter skin was an advantageous adaptation in the region as those with vitamin D deficiencies could end up with rickets and other problems.
[/quote]

You are almost confused, and talk about agriculture when all people were hunter gatherers.

Racial differentiation occurred way before agriculture.

Blacks who lived in Glacial Europe of the ice age gradually died out due weak sun and their dark skin not allowing processing of vitamin D.

The only ones who survived over time and reached ages old enough to reproduce were the albinos.

"White" is essentially a form of albinism

Post: #35

(11-04-2013 01:54 PM)Kabal Wrote:  [qu

This is exactly how the first "whites" came about. The first "whites" had black parents.

Since I am bored in class... cladistics PSA/filibuster:

Modern day Europeans and modern day Africans share (a) common ancestor(s) who happened to live in Africa . This does not mean that modern African DNA "produces" all others.
"


I stopped reading you post after the first few sentences when you contradict your self.

a. That common ancestor of Europeans and Africans "who happened to live in Africa" - Was in fact AFRICAN -- and BLACK AFRICAN at that.

b. "White" is a recessive feature and one that can come about as a mutation of a dominant feature - "Black"

"White" is a form of albinism which survived better in Glacial Europe/Asia during the iceage. People born with such features in Africa normally would have died before the age of reproduction due to skin cancer etc. But in Ice Age Europe they actually reached reproduction age better and healthier to reproduce - and thus became majority.

Post: #36

(11-04-2013 10:13 PM)kdolo Wrote:  You are almost confused, and talk about agriculture when all people were hunter gatherers.

Racial differentiation occurred way before agriculture.

Blacks who lived in Glacial Europe of the ice age gradually died out due weak sun and their dark skin not allowing processing of vitamin D.

The only ones who survived over time and reached ages old enough to reproduce were the albinos.

"White" is essentially a form of albinism

Out of curiosity, what evidence do you have of the above highlighted statement?

I thought that the origins of the different races are still somewhat obscure and unclear, because it's not like we have an accurate historical/paleontological record of the exact moment on race developed kinky hair, or blue eyes, or squint eyes, etc. The idea of race only seems to start popping up about 1000BC onwards, with the Greeks proclaiming themselves superior to the Persians - but even in the oldest histories (eg. Herodotus), what I found strange is the ancient Greeks never referred to the skin colour of other races, which makes me wonder, when did different skin colours arise, since there is almost no mention of this obvious feature in ancient texts?

So since I am confused on this matter, kindly enlighten me by showing us where you got your information from please.

Post: #37

(11-04-2013 10:13 PM)kdolo Wrote:  "White" is essentially a form of albinism

Um...this is not how natural selection works.

The fact that there are albinos amongst European populations pretty much disproves the statement that European features are synonymous with albinism.

Ceterum censeo Osakam esse delendam!

Post: #38

(11-05-2013 05:40 AM)Thomas the Rhymer Wrote:  

(11-04-2013 10:13 PM)kdolo Wrote:  You are almost confused, and talk about agriculture when all people were hunter gatherers.

Racial differentiation occurred way before agriculture.

Out of curiosity, what evidence do you have of the above highlighted statement?

Humans had already settled most of the globe -- including regions with environments that would have favoured different skin/hair tones and facial features -- long before aggriculture was invented.

Delenda est Osaka!

Post: #39

(11-05-2013 06:41 AM)Sargon of Akkad Wrote:  

(11-05-2013 05:40 AM)Thomas the Rhymer Wrote:  

(11-04-2013 10:13 PM)kdolo Wrote:  You are almost confused, and talk about agriculture when all people were hunter gatherers.

Racial differentiation occurred way before agriculture.

Out of curiosity, what evidence do you have of the above highlighted statement?

Humans had already settled most of the globe -- including regions with environments that would have favoured different skin/hair tones and facial features -- long before aggriculture was invented.

Delenda est Osaka!

Yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean that those pre-agricultural human populations looked exactly the same as the races that currently live in those regions.

There's some evidence to suggest that very light skin, blue eyes, and blonde hair associated with genes like OCA2 and SLC24A5 became prevalent in northern Europe (Scandinavia and the Baltics in particular) following the end of the last ice age. There's a theory that the gene, along with lactose tolerance, developed as these populations turned from a hunter-gathering way of life to agriculture.

The problem is that by moving away from a meat-based diet, they were suddenly faced with nutritional deficits. But this was something that the originators of agriculture in the Middle East had already responded to.

What made the situation in northern Europe different was that agriculture was introduced to an unusually high latitude. So, agricultural societies in northern Europe had to deal with the low vitamin D content of a starch-based diet in addition to the fact that at their latitudes they got less sunlight. This may be why very light skin, blonde hair, and blue eyes became prevalent only in this region in the world.

Meanwhile, these people became lactose tolerant as an alternative way of receiving vitamin D, as a result of turning to cattle raising and dairy consumption.

Very high latitudes + farming may be the equation for very fair skin and blue eyes.

For anyone wondering why Asians didn't develop blonde hair and blue eyes, take a look at a map. Scandinavia and the Baltic region - which have the highest concentration of these traits - are at much higher latitudes than China or Japan. Indigenous peoples this far north elsewhere typically did hunting and gathering.

If this theory is correct, then light hair and very fair skin would have been less prevalent in Europe as recently as the period following the end of the last ice age, prior to the introduction of agriculture from the Middle East.

Post: #40

(11-04-2013 10:13 PM)kdolo Wrote:  "White" is essentially a form of albinism

Albinism is a genetic defect that stops someone from producing melanin. Normal whites have melanin, just not as much as the darker races. You can still easily distinguish a normal white from a white with albinism:

Post: #41

Guys lets get back on topic.

Would you bang that albino in speakeasy's pic? I would.

Post: #42

(11-05-2013 08:43 PM)iop890 Wrote:  Guys lets get back on topic.

Would you bang that albino in speakeasy's pic? I would.