posted
^That's just the OLD American Hammer. Same whore, new dress. I'm pretty certain Rasol ran him off with that answer.
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now DJ is saying the Ice made them white. Oh brother
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: It was a gradual process and Europeans weren't that dark to begin with but were probably light brown in color. Remember, they were living in Ice Age Europe for tens of thousands of years before any domestication of cattle!
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm willing to bet that guy is a sock puppet of rasol or someone on his team.
^ If I were you, I would get another expression besides 'sock puppet', it's one of the expressions that gives your [pointless] game away, on multiple levels:
It's both your catch phrase, and your obsession, because it's all you do.....
re: Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on 08 July, 2008 01:57 PM:
sock puppet, the lather is that you're a grown ass man sitting around on your rump whining about them white racists be be sayin......
2)re: Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on 30 March, 2008 05:38 PM
"Apparently either a sockpuppet or his FB is trying to interject himself.."
^ That is not and answer to any of the questions below... try again.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Their skin cancer rates are at least a magnitude lower relative to whites, and there group is perhaps 100x the size of whites.
The point is that melanin level of the lighter Chinese is no lower than the darker whites.
I don't think I should have to post pictures of this, to emphasize.
This is not a debate, because you do not answer any of my questions nor address any of my points.
You say that more melanin is all good, and there is no tradeoff - then why does skin color vary?
Why isn't everyone jet Black?
Why are even Black Africans lighter towards the coasts [both north and south], and darker on the equator?
What force of selection would ever permit anyone with jet Black skin to become lighter?
Why are there so many lightly pigmented peoples in Northern Eurasia, some of whom are almost as pale as whites of Europe?
Until you answer these questions I will ignore the rest of your postings.
The above CORRECTION was not meant to be an answer, but a clarification of what I actually said.
People of color around the world have different shades of complexion to suit the needs of their environments. There is no denying this fact.
As i stated earlier, if the article's theory holds true, then whites over time, should regain their melanin levels now that their vitamin D deficiency is no longer an issue. With Vitamin D requirements meet, the body doesn't have to make such a DRASTIC change to it's ecosystem in support of Vitamin D, it can return the body back to it's optimal protection state.
Agreed?
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't get it. Same word "sockpuppet" and same memeber #14634??? Why are they same.\??
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:I'm willing to bet that guy is a sock puppet of rasol or someone on his team.
^ If I were you, I would get another expression besides 'sock puppet', it's one of the expressions that gives your [pointless] game away, on multiple levels:
It's both your catch phrase, and your obsession, because it's all you do.....
re: Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on 08 July, 2008 01:57 PM:
sock puppet, the lather is that you're a grown ass man sitting around on your rump whining about them white racists be be sayin......
2)
re: <i>
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: Knowledgeiskey718 says: ''Agriculture caused Europeans to turn pale, because, agriculture caused Europeans to drastically lose Vitamin D, from their foregoing hunter gatherer fisher herder lifestyle, which they dropped for agriculture which left Europeans in a need for another way to absorb Vitamin D, in which they did, from cow milk which Europeans also recently developed a gene to tolerate lactose, along with the ability to produce vitamin D from synthesizing UVB. These two recent evolutions played a vital role in Europeans after agriculture, and the loss of a ready made Vitamin D diet.''
How long do you reckon it took for the white boys and girls to pull themselves together after dramatically losing Vitamin D before running down to the nearest herd of cows to juice up? A couple of weeks? Months? Years? Maybe dozens of years? Can I get some hundreds up in here? How long does your grabbag full of tricks allow for this?
Help me out, I'm trying to find the answer.
Since the big D promotes bone density and stuff and general good health maybe some of these guys crawled down the pasture to get the milk instead of walking?
What does ''recently developed a gene'' mean?
Are you talking about horizontal evolution? This will speed up things somewhat I understand, but I'm thinking next month is out of the question.
Man all of your questions were answered already, seriously what is so hard to understand?
Pale skin was acquired to admit sunlight for Vitamin D synthesis, but since Early Europeans diet already consisted of high levels of Vitamin D, they retained their melanin, until agriculture spread, and Europeans no longer ate foods that contained the vitamin D they needed, since agriculture took away the rich Vitamin D diet that Europeans needed to keep their skin dark, Europeans needed to absorb Vitamin D in other ways, but still wasn't equal to their foregoing highly enriched vitamin D diet, and they began turning pale.
Quote from above article
"Either way, the implication is that our European ancestors were brown-skinned for tens of thousands of years --a suggestion made 30 years ago by Stanford University geneticist L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza. He argued that the early immigrants to Europe, who were hunter-gatherers, herders, and fishers, survived on ready-made sources of vitamin D in their diet. But when farming spread in the past 6000 years, he argued, Europeans had fewer sources of vitamin D in their food and needed to absorb more sunlight to produce the vitamin in their skin. Cultural factors such as heavier clothing might also have favored increased absorption of sunlight on the few exposed areas of skin, such as hands and faces, says paleoanthropologist Nina Jablonski of PSU in State College."
Dr. Wells, of the National Geographic Society, said Dr. Pritchard's results were fascinating and would help anthropologists explain the immense diversity of human populations even though their genes are generally similar. The relative handful of selected genes that Dr. Pritchard's study has pinpointed may hold the answer, he said, adding, "Each gene has a story of some pressure we adapted to."
Dr. Wells is gathering DNA from across the globe to map in finer detail the genetic variation brought to light by the HapMap project.
Dr. Pritchard's list of selected genes also includes five that affect skin color. The selected versions of the genes occur solely in Europeans and are presumably responsible for pale skin. Anthropologists have generally assumed that the first modern humans to arrive in Europe some 45,000 years ago had the dark skin of their African origins, but soon acquired the paler skin needed to admit sunlight for vitamin D synthesis.
The finding of five skin genes selected 6,600 years ago could imply that Europeans acquired their pale skin much more recently. Or, the selected genes may have been a reinforcement of a process established earlier, Dr. Pritchard said. The five genes show no sign of selective pressure in East Asians.
Because Chinese and Japanese are also pale, Dr. Pritchard said, evolution must have accomplished the same goal in those populations by working through different genes or by changing the same genes — but many thousands of years before, so that the signal of selection is no longer visible to the new test.
------------
Early Europeans Unable To Stomach Milk
— The first direct evidence that early Europeans were unable to digest milk has been found by scientists at UCL (University College London) and Mainz University.
In a study, published in the journal 'PNAS', the team shows that the gene that controls our ability to digest milk was missing from Neolithic skeletons dating to between 5840 and 5000 BC. However, through exposure to milk, lactose tolerance evolved extremely rapidly, in evolutionary terms. Today, it is present in over ninety per cent of the population of northern Europe and is also found in some African and Middle Eastern populations but is missing from the majority of the adult population globally.
Dr Mark Thomas, UCL Biology, said: "The ability to drink milk is the most advantageous trait that's evolved in Europeans in the recent past. Without the enzyme lactase, drinking milk in adulthood causes bloating and diarrhoea. Although the benefits of milk tolerance are not fully understood yet, they probably include: the continuous supply of milk compared to the boom and bust of seasonal crops; its nourishing qualities; and the fact that it's uncontaminated by parasites, unlike stream water, making it a safer drink. All in all, the ability to drink milk gave some early Europeans a big survival advantage."
The team carried out DNA tests on Neolithic skeletons from some of the earliest organised farming communities in Europe. Their aim was to find out whether these early Europeans from various sites in central, northeast and southeast Europe, carried a version of the lactase gene that controls our ability to produce the essential enzyme lactase into adulthood. The team found that it was absent from their ancient bone DNA. This led the researchers to conclude that the consumption and tolerance of milk would have been very rare or absent at the time.
Scientists have known for decades that at some point in the past all humans were lactose intolerant. What was not known was just how recently lactose tolerance evolved.
Dr Thomas said: "To go from lactose tolerance being rare or absent seven to eight thousand years ago to the commonality we see today in central and northern Europeans just cannot be explained by anything except strong natural selection. Our study confirms that the variant of the lactase gene appeared very recently in evolutionary terms and that it became common because it gave its carriers a massive survival advantage. Scientists have inferred this already through analysis of genes in today's population but we've confirmed it by going back and looking at ancient DNA."
This study challenges the theory that certain groups of Europeans were lactose tolerant and that this inborn ability led the community to pursue dairy farming. Instead, they actually evolved their tolerance of milk within the last 8000 years due to exposure to milk.
Dr Thomas said: "There were two theories out there: one that lactose tolerance led to dairy farming and another that exposure to milk led to the evolution of lactose tolerance. This is a simple chicken or egg question but one that is very important to archaeologists, anthropologists and evolutionary biologists. We found that the lactose tolerance variant of the lactase gene only became common after dairy farming, which started around 9 thousand years ago in Europe.
"This is just one part of the picture researchers are gathering about lactose tolerance and the origins of Europeans. Next on the list is why there is such disparity in lactose tolerance between populations. It's striking, for example, that today around eighty per cent of southern Europeans cannot tolerate lactose even though the first dairy farmers in Europe probably lived in those areas. Through computer simulations and DNA testing we are beginning to get glimpses of the bigger early European picture." [/QB][/QUOTE]
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:As i stated earlier, if the article's theory holds true, then whites over time, should regain their melanin levels now that their vitamin D deficiency is no longer an issue.
If this was even remotely possible, it would take a couple thousand years for this to take place. Why you ask? Evolution my friend. Evolution just doesn't happen overnight. Scientists believe anywhere between 6-12kya( most likely reaching full cold adaptation,pale skin, only 6kya) ago for the evolution of pale skin.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: The above was not meant to be an answer.
I know, that's why I disregard it...
[/QB][/QUOTE]
OK
I know you're thinking about that reversal aspect and the ramifications of bi-directional adaption.
Actually, I'm now hoping the article is actually based on real FACTS. If true, there is a chance WHITES will regain there "composure" and gain a little color. This would make the world a much better place with far fewer Maniac Depressants running around.
Also, earlier, I believe it was you who asked why whites convert synthesis Vitamin D at a faster rate then blacks under the same expose level.
I've researched this and found that interestingly enough, blacks require LESS vitamin D then whites.
National Institute Of health Fact Sheet
Vitamin D from UV exposure It has been suggested, for example, that approximately 5-30 minutes of sun exposure between 10 AM and 3 PM at least twice a week to the face, arms, legs, or back without sunscreen usually lead to sufficient vitamin D synthesis and that the moderate use of commercial tanning beds that emit 2-6% UVB radiation is also effective [11,28]. Individuals with limited sun exposure need to include good sources of vitamin D in their diet or take a supplement. UV radiation is a carcinogen responsible for most of the estimated 1.5 million skin cancers and the 8,000 deaths due to metastatic melanoma that occur annually in the United States [31]. Lifetime cumulative UV damage to skin is also largely responsible for some age-associated dryness and other cosmetic changes.
In 1988-1994, as part of the third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III), the frequency of use of some vitamin D-containing foods and supplements was examined in 1,546 non-Hispanic African American women and 1,426 non-Hispanic white women of reproductive age (15-49 years) [34]. In both groups, 25(OH)D levels were higher in the fall (after a summer of sun exposure) and when milk or fortified cereals were consumed more than three times per week. The prevalence of serum concentrations of 25(OH)D ≤15 ng/mL (≤37.5 nmol/L) was 10 times greater for the African American women (42.2%) than for the white women (4.2%).
Osteoporosis More than 25 million adults in the United States have or are at risk of developing osteoporosis, a disease characterized by fragile bones that significantly increases the risk of bone fractures. African Americans have lower levels of 25(OH)D than Caucasians, yet they develop fewer osteoporotic fractures. This suggests that factors other than vitamin D provide protection [57]. African Americans have an advantage in bone density from early childhood, a function of their more efficient calcium economy, and have a lower risk of fracture even when they have the same bone density as Caucasians. They also have a higher prevalence of obesity, and the resulting higher estrogen levels in obese women might protect them from bone loss [57]. Further reducing the risk of osteoporosis in African Americans are their lower levels of bone-turnover markers, shorter hip-axis length, and superior renal calcium conservation.
This pretty much states that Africans or African Americans have a lower daily requirement for vitamin D then whites and that 25 million US adults (~6-7% of populace?) at risk from Osteoporosis each year are overwhelmingly, WHITE.
I'd be very interested to correlate these findings in with similar reports from Europe, Asia, Africa, and the middle-east.
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:As i stated earlier, if the article's theory holds true, then whites over time, should regain their melanin levels now that their vitamin D deficiency is no longer an issue.
If this was even remotely possible, it would take a couple thousand years for this to take place. Why you ask? Evolution my friend. Evolution just doesn't happen overnight. Scientists believe anywhere between 6-12kya( most likely reaching full cold adaptation,pale skin, only 6kya) ago for the evolution of pale skin.
^ There is also the problem associated with 'how' whites have become depigmented.
Their genes have mutated.
You can't just reverse/undo a mutation.
The most likely way for whites to -regain- color, is thru admixture.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:As i stated earlier, if the article's theory holds true, then whites over time, should regain their melanin levels now that their vitamin D deficiency is no longer an issue.
If this was even remotely possible, it would take a couple thousand years for this to take place. Why you ask? Evolution my friend. Evolution just doesn't happen overnight. Scientists believe anywhere between 6-12kya( most likely reaching full cold adaptation,pale skin, only 6kya) ago for the evolution of pale skin.
^ There is also the problem associated with 'how' whites have become depigmented.
Their genes have mutated.
You can't just reverse/undo a mutation.
The most likely way for whites to -regain- color, is thru admixture.
True. Which has already been taking place since Neolithic times, which is why "whites" are decreasing in the world today, and indeed why some people predict whites a minority in the U.S.A by 2042. Albeit I believe white's already are the minority of the world.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:As i stated earlier, if the article's theory holds true, then whites over time, should regain their melanin levels now that their vitamin D deficiency is no longer an issue.
If this was even remotely possible, it would take a couple thousand years for this to take place. Why you ask? Evolution my friend. Evolution just doesn't happen overnight. Scientists believe anywhere between 6-12kya( most likely reaching full cold adaptation,pale skin, only 6kya) ago for the evolution of pale skin.
^ There is also the problem associated with 'how' whites have become depigmented.
Their genes have mutated.
You can't just reverse/undo a mutation.
The most likely way for whites to -regain- color, is thru admixture.
Yes, As the Hebrews probably knew, if left alone, they would die out
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: ^So how does this assist you in forcing whites into being indigenous to Europe. I'll tell you. NOT AT ALL!!! Whites still BURN in Europe as they do in the US, UK, Israel, Africa, Australia and everywhere else they have invaded. They are no more indigenous to Europe then they are to Israel.
Oh, I forgot to point out that the above is a lie. Whites to do NOT burn in Europe the way the do in the other places Meni listed. Of course Europe has much lower UV concentrations than the other regions. This is not to say that whites don't get sunburn in Europe at all, but that most cases of actual sunburn in Europe happen in southern Europe and of course they are not quite as bad as other more sunny regions.
The highest incidence of sunburn and skin cancers in the world is Australia, the second highest is South Africa, the third highest is in the U.S. etc. Fact is the incidence as well as intensity of sunburn correlates with UV concentration which is associated with latitudes, with tropical latitutdes having the greatest amounts.
The vast majority of cases of skin cancer in the UK and northern Europe are found among folks who traveled to sunnier latitudes for summer vacation, and most of the incidences of actual sunburn in situ UK and other parts of Northern Europe are actually the result of artificial sunburn through sun-tanning lamps etc.
Of course Meni's insane argument is that whites aren't indigenous to anywhere in the planet, so like Rasol said we must assume then that they come from another planet(?) ROTFLPosts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: It was a gradual process and Europeans weren't that dark to begin with but were probably light brown in color. Remember, they were living in Ice Age Europe for tens of thousands of years before any domestication of cattle!
Now DJ is saying the Ice made them white. Oh brother
No moron! During the Ice Age, not only was it more cloudy, but early Europeans were huddled in caves, thus little UV exposure. Now, do the math if you can. I doubt your low intellect can...
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:As i stated earlier, if the article's theory holds true, then whites over time, should regain their melanin levels now that their vitamin D deficiency is no longer an issue.
If this was even remotely possible, it would take a couple thousand years for this to take place. Why you ask? Evolution my friend. Evolution just doesn't happen overnight. Scientists believe anywhere between 6-12kya( most likely reaching full cold adaptation,pale skin, only 6kya) ago for the evolution of pale skin.
^ There is also the problem associated with 'how' whites have become depigmented.
Their genes have mutated.
You can't just reverse/undo a mutation.
Yes; pale-skin in European populations was the result of a "selective sweep". "Evolution" doesn't exactly use "consciousness" to turn on and switch off genetic mutations to *precisely* match alternating temporary phases of a given environment; rather, if a variant [mutant] has a good resistive capacity in reaction to a given environment [with all its complexities], then its chances of survival through subsequent reproductive apparatus enhances, while variants [mutants] that cannot cope with the given environment either die out or are hampered in their capacity to spread or grow. The pressure of environment may thus aid random genetic drift into taking either a negative or positive turn. In the case of most pale-skin Europeans, it would appear that the mechanism that allows for fairly little epidermal eumelanin of the skin — to account for low UV radiation latitudes — while retaining limited ability to generate a little more eumelanin [tanning] during heightened solar UV radiation in a low UV radiation environment, was the most favored variation, and hence, resulted in natural selection. Even in this set up, there are still variations, as seen in the way pale-skin Europeans respond to heightened UV radiation; various pale-skin people tan relatively more uniformly, testifying to a temporary phase of a heightened level of epidermal eumelanin production sufficient enough to be widely distributed across the person's body — although still fairly modest by the standards of epidermal eumelanin distribution in higher UV radiation latitudes, while others generate yet an even more limited enhanced production eumelanin than the aforementioned pale-skin camp, and thereby, seen as sparsely distributed 'patches' or 'spots' of pigmentation across the body — that is to say, freckles; the only other way pale-skin European populations can genetically give way to considerably dark-skinned descendent populations [aside from the "admixture" scenario already mentioned by someone], is if another major "selective sweep" that favors such a condition was to take hold. Given that considerable pigmentation appears to be upheld by a complex set up of several interacting pigmentation producing/enhancing genes — a set up which may well have an apparatus in place to guard its biological integrity, and a breach of which [via random mutations] may well lead to lightening effect to one degree or another, not to mention one which may not be reversible, it is hard to imagine that in a low UV radiation environment, in supplementation by in situ dietary trends of localities, that such a sweep would take hold any time soon, and reverse the trend of population-wide pale-skin distribution.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is one of the most sensible thing you said for awhile. . ."they were huddle in caves" during the ice age. Then it seems you agree with what Mininarmer is saying. The mutation occured in caves. And not the BS about too much clothes. I guess you have a beter handle on this than Jablonski .
BTW - I wonder if the N. Asia experienced the LGM??? wink! wink!.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: It was a gradual process and Europeans weren't that dark to begin with but were probably light brown in color. Remember, they were living in Ice Age Europe for tens of thousands of years before any domestication of cattle!
Now DJ is saying the Ice made them white. Oh brother
No moron! During the Ice Age, not only was it more cloudy, but early Europeans were huddled in caves, thus little UV exposure. Now, do the math if you can. I doubt your low intellect can...
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: ^So how does this assist you in forcing whites into being indigenous to Europe. I'll tell you. NOT AT ALL!!! Whites still BURN in Europe as they do in the US, UK, Israel, Africa, Australia and everywhere else they have invaded. They are no more indigenous to Europe then they are to Israel.
Oh, I forgot to point out that the above is a lie. Whites to do NOT burn in Europe the way the do in the other places Meni listed. Of course Europe has much lower UV concentrations than the other regions. This is not to say that whites don't get sunburn in Europe at all, but that most cases of actual sunburn in Europe happen in southern Europe and of course they are not quite as bad as other more sunny regions.
The highest incidence of sunburn and skin cancers in the world is Australia, the second highest is South Africa, the third highest is in the U.S. etc. Fact is the incidence as well as intensity of sunburn correlates with UV concentration which is associated with latitudes, with tropical latitutdes having the greatest amounts.
The vast majority of cases of skin cancer in the UK and northern Europe are found among folks who traveled to sunnier latitudes for summer vacation, and most of the incidences of actual sunburn in situ UK and other parts of Northern Europe are actually the result of artificial sunburn through sun-tanning lamps etc.
Of course Meni's insane argument is that whites aren't indigenous to anywhere in the planet, so like Rasol said we must assume then that they come from another planet(?) ROTFL
Yes DJ, believe it. Whites burn, and there is no doubt. Relative to all other "races", All three levels of white skin burns in the sun. Level 3 is likely admixture. It's their curse like a women's cycle. Remember this easy jingle. Women bleed, whites burn, blacks play happily in the Sun.
Israel's skin cancer rate second highest in the world By Ran Reznick Israel is second after Australia for occurences of malignant melanoma, according to the Health Ministry report covering 1998 to 2000. There are 14.8 cases of malignant melanoma in Israel per 100,000 men and 14.4 cases per 100,000 women. This is less than half the rate in Australia but higher than in North America, double the rate in the European Union and up to 14 times higher than on all other continents.
Also, the UK;
According to a study* on skin cancer incidence throughout Europe, the UK has the highest skin cancer rates both for children, aged 0 to 14, and teenagers, aged 15 to 19. Furthermore, cases of melanoma - the deadliest type of skin cancer - increased four-fold in UK teenagers over just two decades (1978 to 1997). European Journal of Cancer 2006, Volume 42, Issue 13, Pages 2170-2182 (September 2006) Skin cancer incidence and survival in European children and adolescents (1978-1997). Report from the Automated Childhood Cancer Information System project E. de Vriesa, E. Steliarova-Foucherb, A. Spatzc, E. Ardanazd, A.M.M. Eggermonte, J.W.W. Coeberghaf
Here are the top five regions with the greatest per-capita skin cancer ratios:
1. North America, Cuba 2. Eastern Europe 3. Europe 4. Australia, Asia Pacific and East Asia 5. Eastern Europe and Central Asia
The EUROCARE analysis, which was presented Thursday at the European Cancer Conference, tracks statistics on 42 types of cancer in 22 European countries. It examined five-year survival after cancer diagnosis for 1.8 million adults and 24,000 children diagnosed from 1990 to 1994 and followed to the end of 1999. The research, which is due to be published in the Annals of Oncology, is the largest international cancer survival study ever done.
Overall cancer survival was generally below the European average in five eastern European countries -- Czech Republic, Estonia, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia, with Poland the lowest. Among western European nations, survival rates were lowest in Denmark, England, Scotland, Wales, Malta and Portugal.
Human skin types
Skin type Unexposed skin color Sun response I white always burns, never tans II white always burns, tans minimally III white burns minimally, sometimes tans IV light brown burns minimally, always tans well V brown rarely burns, tans darkly (Asian skins) VI dark brown never burns, tans darkly (African skins)
From World Health Organization Fact Sheet
* Up to 80% of solar UV radiation can penetrate light cloud cover. Haze in the atmosphere can even increase UV radiation exposure.
* UV radiation is generally lower during the winter months, but snow reflection can double your overall exposure, especially at high altitude.
* A tan results from your body defending itself against further damage from UV radiation.
More than 90% of non-melanoma skin cancers occur in fair skinned people who tend to burn.Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why are guys letting BigottedPatriot lead you around by the nose, making you once again mark time march by for the zillionth time rehearsing the old negroid-caucasoid routine.
He writes a short paragraph. You reply with an essay. You don't require him to fully explain nor support himself yet you drag out all kinds of artillery.
Meanwhile he and hiskind advance their work while you're left going in the direction he points. What a big laugh his kind has at how easy it is to retard your progress.
The war is not won by attending to every little skirmish. !000 minor skirmishes can be won and still the war can lost over the result of one major battle. The major battle is establishing and distributing Africana facts not every other week wasting time repeating an issue that's been run into the ground already. Give 'im a link and then forget 'im.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Why are guys letting BigottedPatriot lead you around by the nose, making you once again mark time march by for the zillionth time rehearsing the old negroid-caucasoid routine.
He writes a short paragraph. You reply with an essay. You don't require him to fully explain nor support himself yet you drag out all kinds of artillery.
Meanwhile he and hiskind advance their work while you're left going in the direction he points. What a big laugh his kind has at how easy it is to retard your progress.
The war is not won by attending to every little skirmish. !000 minor skirmishes can be won and still the war can lost over the result of one major battle. The major battle is establishing and distributing Africana facts not every other week wasting time repeating an issue that's been run into the ground already. Give 'im a link and then forget 'im.
It only makes sense if the "BigottedPatriot" is an obvious diversion, most likely a sockpuppet of rasolowtiz, Mary or Whiskey. Whisky and Mary have been having problems of late explaining away their disguised Eurocentrism re stereotyping Nubians and Egyptians. This "BigottedPatriot" could not have come at a better time...
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Why are guys letting BigottedPatriot lead you around by the nose, making you once again mark time march by for the zillionth time rehearsing the old negroid-caucasoid routine.
He writes a short paragraph. You reply with an essay. You don't require him to fully explain nor support himself yet you drag out all kinds of artillery.
Meanwhile he and hiskind advance their work while you're left going in the direction he points. What a big laugh his kind has at how easy it is to retard your progress.
The war is not won by attending to every little skirmish. !000 minor skirmishes can be won and still the war can lost over the result of one major battle. The major battle is establishing and distributing Africana facts not every other week wasting time repeating an issue that's been run into the ground already. Give 'im a link and then forget 'im.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Why are guys letting BigottedPatriot lead you around by the nose, making you once again mark time march by for the zillionth time rehearsing the old negroid-caucasoid routine.
He writes a short paragraph. You reply with an essay. You don't require him to fully explain nor support himself yet you drag out all kinds of artillery.
Meanwhile he and hiskind advance their work while you're left going in the direction he points. What a big laugh his kind has at how easy it is to retard your progress.
The war is not won by attending to every little skirmish. !000 minor skirmishes can be won and still the war can lost over the result of one major battle. The major battle is establishing and distributing Africana facts not every other week wasting time repeating an issue that's been run into the ground already. Give 'im a link and then forget 'im.
Wise words as usual.
Are you going to be blogging on Aegyptopedia.com? I think that Hori guy has the passion and the WILL to keep it going, not to mention the funds.
While the wiki should be free for anyone with information to contribute, I think he should be careful with who he allows to blog on there. The blogs have to be aligned with the goals of the site which is to spread correct information about Ancient Egypt & Egyptology. He can be a bit too nice sometimes so I think he needs to be very careful with the blogs.
Posts: 1819 | From: odesco baba | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Why are guys letting BigottedPatriot lead you around by the nose. He writes a short paragraph. You reply with an essay.
Actually I dispatched him with one reply, and he hasn't been heard from since. [can't say anything about the other replies, nor stop them from replying, nor you from addressing their replies. ]
quote: "Materials and methods In 1997, the German Institute for Archaeology headed an excavation of the tombs of the nobles in Thebes-West, Upper Egypt. At this time, three types of tissues were sampled from different mummies: meniscus (fibrocartilage), skin, and placenta. Archaeological findings suggest that the mummies dated from the New Kingdom (approximately 1550_/1080 BC)..... The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of Negroid origin."
posted
I don't do wikis because cmiiw they're just chalkboards easily erased and/or overwritten.
I do know a guy who some modicum of lockdown for his wiki but much damage was done in the interim.
I will think about it as I play Uatu.
quote:Originally posted by Lord Sauron: Are you going to be blogging on Aegyptopedia.com? I think that Hori guy has the passion and the WILL to keep it going, not to mention the funds.
While the wiki should be free for anyone with information to contribute, I think he should be careful with who he allows to blog on there. The blogs have to be aligned with the goals of the site which is to spread correct information about Ancient Egypt & Egyptology. He can be a bit too nice sometimes so I think he needs to be very careful with the blogs.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Why are guys letting BigottedPatriot lead you around by the nose, making you once again mark time march by for the zillionth time rehearsing the old negroid-caucasoid routine.
He writes a short paragraph. You reply with an essay. You don't require him to fully explain nor support himself yet you drag out all kinds of artillery.
Meanwhile he and hiskind advance their work while you're left going in the direction he points. What a big laugh his kind has at how easy it is to retard your progress.
The war is not won by attending to every little skirmish. !000 minor skirmishes can be won and still the war can lost over the result of one major battle. The major battle is establishing and distributing Africana facts not every other week wasting time repeating an issue that's been run into the ground already. Give 'im a link and then forget 'im.
Of course! And by the way, by "biggoted patriot" you mean Meninarmer. His hatred of whites is obvious. He claims whites get sunburned which is true, yet he fails to provide evidence of endemic sunburn all over Europe the way in more equatorial countries!
^ The man pictured above is a Saami indigenous to northern Scandinavia. Now, when is the last time you heard of people getting sunburn in that area??!! LOL
By the way, it's convenient that he forgot to address the opposite issue-- blacks and other darker peoples of color suffering from vitamin D defficiency in Europe!
Jablonski-- "Immigrants from Africa, India, and other equatorial regions upon living in the UK and other northern European countries began developing diseases and disorders associated with vitamin D deficiency..."
Coincidence? I think not.
True blacks can play out in the sun without getting burned, but in Europe where the sunlight is weaker they apparently can get sick from not getting enough of that sunlight. Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Told you this guy has a serous problem understanding questions. He believes Altk meant Meninarmer, DJ is such an ass. He starts of his post with “of course”. So Altk explain to DJ whom you were referring to. Help the lad out.
Rasol beileve it is American Patriot, Sauron ?, Alive? Me - not sure.
You and your cryptic post. I like it.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Why are guys letting BigottedPatriot lead you around by the nose, making you once again mark time march by for the zillionth time rehearsing the old negroid-caucasoid routine.
He writes a short paragraph. You reply with an essay. You don't require him to fully explain nor support himself yet you drag out all kinds of artillery.
Meanwhile he and hiskind advance their work while you're left going in the direction he points. What a big laugh his kind has at how easy it is to retard your progress.
The war is not won by attending to every little skirmish. !000 minor skirmishes can be won and still the war can lost over the result of one major battle. The major battle is establishing and distributing Africana facts not every other week wasting time repeating an issue that's been run into the ground already. Give 'im a link and then forget 'im.
Of course! And by the way, by "biggoted patriot" you mean Meninarmer. His hatred of whites is obvious. He claims whites get sunburned which is true, yet he fails to provide evidence of endemic sunburn all over Europe the way in more equatorial countries!
^ The man pictured above is a Saami indigenous to northern Scandinavia. Now, when is the last time you heard of people getting sunburn in that area??!! LOL
By the way, it's convenient that he forgot to address the opposite issue-- blacks and other darker peoples of color suffering from vitamin D defficiency in Europe!
Jablonski-- "Immigrants from Africa, India, and other equatorial regions upon living in the UK and other northern European countries began developing diseases and disorders associated with vitamin D deficiency..."
Coincidence? I think not.
True blacks can play out in the sun without getting burned, but in Europe where the sunlight is weaker they apparently can get sick from not getting enough of that sunlight.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL, you use false and incorrect logic just like the article you are defending.
Al isn't talking about me when he says BigottedPatriot. That's just your projection and wishful thinking. At least, I don't think Al is still upset with me about our Jewish riff. Who I believe he is referring to is the former American Hammer, now know as the imposer above and several other nicks. AM/AP/BP is a white supremacist, are you his flunky?
like that article, now you too are grasping at straws. Blacks do have some cases of reported Vitamin D deficiency, but guess what. They don't turn white due to it, and their deficiencies are TEMPORARY, not a FIXED defect as in whites. Out of desperation you attempt to compare apples to oranges.
The only cases of blacks turning white is due to leprosy or generational admixture with defective whites. After all, that is really the only recourse left for long term survival for whites. To force interbreeding.
The above article proves NOTHING. It is filled with loose speculation and wishful thinking, else why did Europeans living in coastal regions with good Vitamin D sources also turn white?
What are "Ready-made" food sources the article mentions? Exactly how long did they last? Where were these Europeans when the began to switch? Why did it also effect whites with ample Vitamin D, or hadn't fishing been discovered by Europeans? Perhaps this is due to a lack of fishing holes in caves, so the skill set was never developed until much later.
I am pleased someone mentioned the Inuits because they are a perfect example of a STABLE adjustment of the physical ecosystem to an environment and not a severe mutation as we see in whites. If the article was based in reality, Europeans would have followed and evolutionary adaption very similar to the Inuits.
As for European skin cancer rates, no doubt skin cancers rates there follow and are slightly higher then in the US. This Center For Disease Control graph is very revealing and show the condition of whites is increasing at a fantastic rate. I have no doubt the European graph shows the same, but with larger numbers of incidents.
US skin Cancer In Whites, Hispanics, Black (NOISE), and Asians
Yo Marc! Do your thing. Seems unlike the paint-by numbers-crew, you are one of the truly innovative thinkers on the board. One day I see it making a good book. Keep it up!
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another example of you not THINKING. DJ. Tell me what is wrong with what is mentioned below.. . .you can't . . . . .let me help you.
Why would these equatorial immigrants develop deficiencies after all they are eating the same food as the Europeans. To Knowledge's point "the food made them white". Or is it the UV. I think the spin by some is -- during the ice age Europeans had limited diet(plus they were covered with clothes) therefore they needed more access to Sunlight to allow the skin/body to make vit D. Now since there isn't any "ice age" and the food rich in vit D is readily available why would there be . . .deficiencies. More BS from Jablonski. Like her statement that "the clothes made them white".
Also - Black people DO get sunburn. Several years ago spent 2days at AC shore on the beach for about 6 hours. Several days later the skin started peeling. Diagnose as . . .sunburn. I couldn't believe it. Have seen it many times with the sister, daughter and other relatives who are light skin.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Jablonski-- "Immigrants from Africa, India, and other equatorial regions upon living in the UK and other northern European countries began developing diseases and disorders associated with vitamin D deficiency..."
True blacks can play out in the sun without getting burned, but in Europe where the sunlight is weaker they apparently can get sick from not getting enough of that sunlight.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blacks do get sunburn and yes, even the darkest African can TAN. However, this sunburn doesn't lead to melanoma as it does in whites whose DNA repair facility has been totally devastated and inoperable due to their extreme mutation.
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Shoot!!!You beat me to it Meninarmer. Same observation with the cited paper. You are making me look like DJ. Repeating the same thing someone just said.
Quote: =====
What are "Ready-made" food sources the article mentions? Exactly how long did they last? Where were these Europeans when the began to switch? Why did it also effect whites with ample Vitamin D, or hadn't fishing been discovered by Europeans? Perhaps this is due to a ***lack of fishing holes in caves*** , so the skill set was never developed until much later.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
So Sauron what are you instigating. Censorship.
quote:Originally posted by Lord Sauron:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Why are guys letting BigottedPatriot lead you around by the nose, making you once again mark time march by for the zillionth time rehearsing the old negroid-caucasoid routine.
He writes a short paragraph. You reply with an essay. You don't require him to fully explain nor support himself yet you drag out all kinds of artillery.
Meanwhile he and hiskind advance their work while you're left going in the direction he points. What a big laugh his kind has at how easy it is to retard your progress.
The war is not won by attending to every little skirmish. !000 minor skirmishes can be won and still the war can lost over the result of one major battle. The major battle is establishing and distributing Africana facts not every other week wasting time repeating an issue that's been run into the ground already. Give 'im a link and then forget 'im.
Wise words as usual.
Are you going to be blogging on Aegyptopedia.com? I think that Hori guy has the passion and the WILL to keep it going, not to mention the funds.
While the wiki should be free for anyone with information to contribute, I think he should be careful with who he allows to blog on there. **The blogs have to be aligned with the goals of the site which is to spread ***correct*** information about Ancient Egypt & Egyptology.** He can be a bit too nice sometimes so I think he needs to be very careful with the blogs.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Shoot!!!You beat me to it Meninarmer. Same observation with the cited paper. You are making me look like DJ. Repeating the same thing someone just said.
No problem. DJ is at an disadvantage, and a good example of garbage regurgitation.
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: The above article proves NOTHING. It is filled with loose speculation and wishful thinking,
No loose speculation or wishful thinking, except for yours. It proves how and why Europeans turned pale, it's no one elses fault that you have comprehension problems.
quote: else why did Europeans living in coastal regions with good Vitamin D sources also turn white?
Why did all Europeans leave their foregoing hunter-gatherer, fisher and herder lifestyle? Yes, that's right because of agriculture. Agriculture affected all Europeans, not just certain areas, slowmo.
quote: What are "Ready-made" food sources the article mentions?
Early Europeans were hunter gatherers, herders and fishers. The meats that their diet already consisted of high levels of Vitamin D. Which is considered a ready made vitamin D diet. Which is how Early Europeans kept their color, and which is why Eskimos today retain their color.
quote: Exactly how long did they last?
Since humans reached Europe, up until the spread of agriculture. Which is tens of thousands of years.
quote:Where were these Europeans when the began to switch?
In Europe duh, where else?
quote: Why did it also effect whites with ample Vitamin D,
Because agriculture switched their diets, you simple minded moron.
quote:or hadn't fishing been discovered by Europeans?
Wow, you're really ignorant. Early Europeans were hunter gatherers herders and fishers. They left their fore-going fishing lifestyle when agriculture spread.
quote: Perhaps this is due to a lack of fishing holes in caves, so the skill set was never developed until much later.
No it's due to your lack of reading and comprehension skills. The Early Europeans were already fishers when they reached Europe. So how would they develop the skill later? What they absorbed later was agriculture, which changed their diets.
quote: I am pleased someone mentioned the Inuits because they are a perfect example of a STABLE adjustment of the physical ecosystem to an environment and not a severe mutation as we see in whites. If the article was based in reality, Europeans would have followed and evolutionary adaption very similar to the Inuits.
Wow, man. Eskimos only retain their color because of a rich VITAMIN D diet, what don't you understand about this?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can't get over this " the food made them white". Tell those wannabe white Arabs, Indians, Philopenes that if they eat **improperly** they will turn white. LOL
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: To Knowledge's point "the food made them white". Or is it the UV. I think the spin by some is -- during the ice age Europeans had limited diet(plus they were covered with clothes) therefore they needed more access to Sunlight to allow the skin/body to make vit D. Now since there isn't any "ice age" and the food rich in vit D is readily available why would there be . . .deficiencies. More BS from Jablonski. Like her statement that "the clothes made them white".
Where or how did you come to this conclusion? I said the food Europeans ate didn't make them white, the diet they switched to when agriculture spread, changed their foregoing, hunter gatherer lifestyle which is how early Europeans consumed Vitamin D to keep their skin dark. Which is how Eskimos keep their color. Agriculture didn't consist of all the Vitamin D, as did the hunter gatherer lifestyle of Early Europeans. Europeans had to evolve to produce Vitamin D in other ways. Which one was to produce Vitamin D through synthesizing UVB under darker cloudy skies. Also a gene evolved to tolerate lactose which gave Early Europeans a great survival advantage.
The heavier clothing they wore increased vitamin D synthesis in the few areas exposed which made the said areas to work harder to produce the Vitamin D through synthesis. Jablonski never said clothes made them white, nor did I say food made them white. It was a gradual process and not an overnight miracle, it took thousands of years.
You're just a complete dunce.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Your answers are full of obvious contradictions in fact. As the USDA daily allowance menu suggests, many meats are not rich in Vitamin D. The highest sources being fish.
Exclude/overlook fortified foodstuffs such as Milk, bread, ect. only available in recent times. However, according to this chart, a human could obtain it's daily quota of vitamin D from many varieties of fish consistent with the long term diets of The Inuits as well as most of Asia.
I would suggest a mutation as severe as occurred in whites would have begun in central regions furthest away from coastal regions due to isolation from Vitamin D rich seafoods while coastal Europeans showed far less of a mutation due to Vitamin D adequate food stores. Strange that COD, the richest source of vitamin D has always been and still is abundantly available in Europe. Cod is also easily packaged for long term storage by salting, making it easy to transport over long distances without risk of spoilage. This storage technique has been known and utilized for thousands of years. This is not what the article suggests. In fact, it avoids any discussion of this, and doesn't bother to mention specifics of what they term, "Ready-made" foodstuffs.
Table 3: Selected Food Sources of Vitamin D [23-25] Food IUs per serving* Percent DV** Cod liver oil, 1 tablespoon 1,360 340 Salmon, cooked, 3.5 ounces 360 90 Mackerel, cooked, 3.5 ounces 345 90 Tuna fish, canned in oil, 3 ounces 200 50 Sardines, canned in oil, drained, 1.75 ounces 250 70 Milk, nonfat, reduced fat, and whole, vitamin D-fortified, 1 cup 98 25 Margarine, fortified, 1 tablespoon 60 15 Ready-to-eat cereal, fortified with 10% of the DV for vitamin D, 0.75-1 cup (more heavily fortified cereals might provide more of the DV) 40 10 Egg, 1 whole (vitamin D is found in yolk) 20 6 Liver, beef, cooked, 3.5 ounces 15 4 Cheese, Swiss, 1 ounce 12 4
*IUs = International Units. **DV = Daily Value. DVs were developed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to help consumers compare the nutrient contents of products within the context of a total diet. The DV for vitamin D is 400 IU for adults and children age 5 and older. Food labels, however, are not required to list vitamin D content unless a food has been fortified with this nutrient. Foods providing 20% or more of the DV are considered to be high sources of a nutrient.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Nutrient Database Web site, http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/ [26], lists the nutrient content of many foods; relatively few have been analyzed for vitamin D content.
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: ^ Your answers are full of obvious contradictions in fact.
Tell me something about whiskey I don't know...
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Can't get over this " the food made them white". Tell those wannabe white Arabs, Indians, Philopenes that if they eat **improperly** they will turn white. LOL
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: ^ Your answers are full of obvious contradictions in fact. As the USDA daily allowance menu suggests, many meats are not rich in Vitamin D. The highest sources being fish.
Exclude/overlook fortified foodstuffs such as Milk, bread, ect. only available in recent times. However, according to this chart, a human could obtain it's daily quota of vitamin D from many varieties of fish consistent with the long term diets of The Inuits as well as most of Asia.
I would suggest a mutation as severe as occurred in whites would have begun in central regions furthest away from coastal regions due to isolation from Vitamin D rich seafoods while coastal Europeans showed far less of a mutation due to Vitamin D adequate food stores. Strange that COD, the richest source of vitamin D has always been and still is abundantly available in Europe. Cod is also easily packaged for long term storage by salting, making it easy to transport over long distances without risk of spoilage. This storage technique has been known and utilized for thousands of years. This is not what the article suggests. In fact, it avoids any discussion of this, and doesn't bother to mention specifics of what they term, "Ready-made" foodstuffs.
Table 3: Selected Food Sources of Vitamin D [23-25] Food IUs per serving* Percent DV** Cod liver oil, 1 tablespoon 1,360 340 Salmon, cooked, 3.5 ounces 360 90 Mackerel, cooked, 3.5 ounces 345 90 Tuna fish, canned in oil, 3 ounces 200 50 Sardines, canned in oil, drained, 1.75 ounces 250 70 Milk, nonfat, reduced fat, and whole, vitamin D-fortified, 1 cup 98 25 Margarine, fortified, 1 tablespoon 60 15 Ready-to-eat cereal, fortified with 10% of the DV for vitamin D, 0.75-1 cup (more heavily fortified cereals might provide more of the DV) 40 10 Egg, 1 whole (vitamin D is found in yolk) 20 6 Liver, beef, cooked, 3.5 ounces 15 4 Cheese, Swiss, 1 ounce 12 4
*IUs = International Units. **DV = Daily Value. DVs were developed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to help consumers compare the nutrient contents of products within the context of a total diet. The DV for vitamin D is 400 IU for adults and children age 5 and older. Food labels, however, are not required to list vitamin D content unless a food has been fortified with this nutrient. Foods providing 20% or more of the DV are considered to be high sources of a nutrient.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Nutrient Database Web site, http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/ [26], lists the nutrient content of many foods; relatively few have been analyzed for vitamin D content.
Your irrelevant post is worthless. I shouldn't be having to explain this over and over to you, like you're an elementary school child. There isn't anything wrong with the below quotes. Just your lack of perception and comprehension.
Researchers have disagreed for decades about an issue that is only skin-deep: How quickly did the first modern humans who swept into Europe acquire pale skin? Now a new report on the evolution of a gene for skin color suggests that Europeans lightened up quite recently, perhaps only 6000 to 12,000 years ago. This contradicts a long-standing hypothesis that modern humans in Europe grew paler about 40,000 years ago, as soon as they migrated into northern latitudes. Under darker skies, pale skin absorbs more sunlight than dark skin, allowing ultraviolet rays to produce more vitamin D for bone growth and calcium absorption. "The [evolution of] light skin occurred long after the arrival of modern humans in Europe," molecular anthropologist Heather Norton of the University of Arizona, Tucson, said in her talk.
"Either way, the implication is that our European ancestors were brown-skinned for tens of thousands of years --a suggestion made 30 years ago by Stanford University geneticist L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza. He argued that the early immigrants to Europe, who were hunter-gatherers, herders, and fishers, survived on ready-made sources of vitamin D in their diet. But when farming spread in the past 6000 years, he argued, Europeans had fewer sources of vitamin D in their food and needed to absorb more sunlight to produce the vitamin in their skin. Cultural factors such as heavier clothing might also have favored increased absorption of sunlight on the few exposed areas of skin, such as hands and faces, says paleoanthropologist Nina Jablonski of PSU in State College."
-------
Early Europeans Unable To Stomach Milk
— The first direct evidence that early Europeans were unable to digest milk has been found by scientists at UCL (University College London) and Mainz University.
In a study, published in the journal 'PNAS', the team shows that the gene that controls our ability to digest milk was missing from Neolithic skeletons dating to between 5840 and 5000 BC. However, through exposure to milk, lactose tolerance evolved extremely rapidly, in evolutionary terms. Today, it is present in over ninety per cent of the population of northern Europe and is also found in some African and Middle Eastern populations but is missing from the majority of the adult population globally.
Dr Mark Thomas, UCL Biology, said: "The ability to drink milk is the most advantageous trait that's evolved in Europeans in the recent past. Without the enzyme lactase, drinking milk in adulthood causes bloating and diarrhoea. Although the benefits of milk tolerance are not fully understood yet, they probably include: the continuous supply of milk compared to the boom and bust of seasonal crops; its nourishing qualities; and the fact that it's uncontaminated by parasites, unlike stream water, making it a safer drink. All in all, the ability to drink milk gave some early Europeans a big survival advantage."
------
Dr. Pritchard's list of selected genes also includes five that affect skin color. The selected versions of the genes occur solely in Europeans and are presumably responsible for pale skin. Anthropologists have generally assumed that the first modern humans to arrive in Europe some 45,000 years ago had the dark skin of their African origins, but soon acquired the paler skin needed to admit sunlight for vitamin D synthesis.
The finding of five skin genes selected 6,600 years ago could imply that Europeans acquired their pale skin much more recently. Or, the selected genes may have been a reinforcement of a process established earlier, Dr. Pritchard said. The five genes show no sign of selective pressure in East Asians.Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ LOL, post it as many times as you like but it still fails to address the many inconsistencies I and others have pointed out in it's logic.
Interestingly, the emphasis here is with Cow's milk when at the time Goat's were the largest domesticated species for it's meat and milk, and were widely consumed. I also find it very interesting that Goat's milk (in it's natural unfortified state) contains more vitamin D per volume relative to the same measurement of Cow's milk, without the effects of lactose intolerance?
Did all the goat and fish simply disappear from early European culinary access? If the article had evidence of some type of sheep/goat plague that wiped out their source or something along those lines, it would make for a much more believable presentation.
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: Blacks do get sunburn and yes, even the darkest African can TAN. However, this sunburn doesn't lead to melanoma as it does in whites whose DNA repair facility has been totally devastated and inoperable due to their extreme mutation.
Of interest, and again from MN's own cited article:
Controversy over sunscreen The statement that "sunburn causes skin cancer" is adequate when it refers to basal-cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma. But it is false when it comes to malignant melanoma (see picture: UVR sunburn melanoma).[10] The statistical correlation between sunburn and melanoma is due to a common cause — the UV-radiation. However, they are generated via two different mechanisms direct DNA damage is ascribed by many medical doctors to a change in behaviour of the sunscreen user due to a false sense of security afforded by the sunscreen. (Other researchers blame insufficient correction for confounding factors; light skinned individuals versus indirect DNA damage).
Topically applied sunscreens block the UV rays as long as they do not penetrate into the skin. This prevents sunburn, suntanning, and skin cancer. If however the sunscreen filter is absorbed into the skin it only prevents the sunburn but it increases the amount of free radicals which in turn increases the risk for malignant melanoma. The harmful effect of photoexcited sunscreen filters on living tissue has been shown in many photobiological studies.[11][12][13][14] Whether sunscreen prevents or promotes the development of melanoma depends on the relative importance of the protective effect from the topical sunscreen and the harmful effects of the absorbed sunscreen.Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Djehuti: I think they were refering to American Patriot AKA The Texan "Professor" H. (hore/the American Hammer)
Sadly, this guy sounds like he is oriented (or maybe was) with some type of school system. Lawd have mercy..
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Although he says he teaches American history at the college level, all indications point to him teaching welding at a vocational school in Texas.
Rasol
Thanks for reposting those two paragraphs, but they say nothing about blacks actually contracting any significant levels of melanoma or skin cancer.
As blacks continue to interbreed with whites, it makes sense that some percentage of the offsapring will be at greater risk.
What is of greater concern with white exposure to UVB is long term genetic damage to the reproductive organs which of course would be much more devastating then skin cancer.
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Alive-(What Box): Djehuti: I think they were refering to American Patriot AKA The Texan "Professor" H. (hore/the American Hammer)
Sadly, this guy sounds like he is oriented (or maybe was) with some type of school system. Lawd have mercy..
LOL It doesn't matter they are all biggoted trolls! Whether they be white Americans who are blackphobic or black Africans who are whitephobic. Despite the difference in color of themselves or the people they hate they are of the same 'kind'. Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: ^ LOL, post it as many times as you like but it still fails to address the many inconsistencies I and others have pointed out in it's logic.
Interestingly, the emphasis here is with Cow's milk when at the time Goat's were the largest domesticated species for it's meat and milk, and were widely consumed. I also find it very interesting that Goat's milk (in it's natural unfortified state) contains more vitamin D per volume relative to the same measurement of Cow's milk, without the effects of lactose intolerance?
Did all the goat and fish simply disappear from early European culinary access? If the article had evidence of some type of sheep/goat plague that wiped out their source or something along those lines, it would make for a much more believable presentation.
No inconsistencies, because you haven't proved anything, but show that you have comprehension problems, every question you ask, has been addressed and thoroughly answered.
Do you understand the difference between hunter-gathering, fishing, herding vs. farming? It doesn't seem like you do. The answer of how Early Europeans retained their melanin, can be taken from example of Eskimos, who if not for their rich vitamin D diets, would NOT be able to retain their melanin. Understand???
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Let me also point out that Inuit and other Siberians not only fished but ate the blubber of marine animals such as seals and whales which is chalked full of vitamin D. The only source of vitamin D paleolithic Europeans had was fish which wasn't as much as that found in marine mammals so no doubt even before the introduction of agriculture thier skin color was already quite light.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Let me also point out that Inuit and other Siberians not only fished but ate the blubber of marine animals such as seals and whales which is chalked full of vitamin D. The only source of vitamin D paleolithic Europeans had was fish which wasn't as much as that found in marine mammals so no doubt even before the introduction of agriculture thier skin color was already quite light.
I've already explained this to these imbeciles. Eskimos diet has, and always has, consisted of a much much more rich Vitamin D level than Europeans. Which was also never interrupted or shifted by agriculture, like Europeans were. This is ALL that Eskimos eat, and always ate, immense amounts of Vitamin D.
Not too sure how quite light you mean, I know Nina Jablonski in Journey Of man says Europeans were probably quite lightly pigmented, but still they were brown skinned, and remember these early Europeans also exhibited tropical adaptations as well. Eskimos despite retaining their melanin are extremely cold adapted. So even though cold adaptation doesn't mean white skin(ex. Eskimos) I am pretty sure though tropical adaptation definitely entails brown skin.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^From all indications with fish, sheep, goats, available to early Europeans, why is it they lost their pigmentation in Europe?
Between the fish and goats, they should have had ample sources of Vitamin D.
Did they not know how to fish? Did they not have access to salt? When they mutated, did they just become dumb and forget all this stuff?
Where goats have been domestically available in for 10,000 years. What, Europeans had no goats? So, what were they herding cows before goats?
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: ^From all indications with fish, sheep, goats, available to early Europeans, why is it they lost their pigmentation in Europe?
Between the fish and goats, they should have had ample sources of Vitamin D.
Did they not know how to fish? Did they not have access to salt? When they mutated, did they just become dumb and forget all this stuff?
Where goats have been domestically available in for 10,000 years. What, Europeans had no goats? So, what were they herding cows before goats?
Guy, yes Early Europeans survived on this Vitamin D you are mentioning, because they were hunter gatherers fishers and herders. Understand now, when agriculture spread they gave up the hunter gatherer fisher and herder lifestyle, for farming. With this new advanced farming technique these Europeans were eating new foods, different foods, not the same as they did when they were previously hunter-gatherers, fishers and herders.
Tell me Meninarmer, how and why do you think these animals were domesticated? What does animal domestication means?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Let me also point out that Inuit and other Siberians not only fished but ate the blubber of marine animals such as seals and whales which is chalked full of vitamin D. The only source of vitamin D paleolithic Europeans had was fish which wasn't as much as that found in marine mammals so no doubt even before the introduction of agriculture thier skin color was already quite light.
This is irrelevant and only introduced in a weakly veiled, tranparent attempt to perhaps introduce a possible source of Vitamin D assumed not available to Europeans. Fact is, Inuits and Yupiks had an ample source of ready available vitamin D that did not require them to need whale hide for this purpose. From my understanding of their diets, they required whales for much more, including oil, protein, as well as fat. With the availability of COD, Salmon,and other seafood these peoples evolved environmentally, as intended with natural protection mechanism intact while Europeans evolved outside of this standard deviation.
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Let me also point out that Inuit and other Siberians not only fished but ate the blubber of marine animals such as seals and whales which is chalked full of vitamin D. The only source of vitamin D paleolithic Europeans had was fish which wasn't as much as that found in marine mammals so no doubt even before the introduction of agriculture thier skin color was already quite light.
This is irrelevent and only introduced in an attempt to perhaps introduce a possible source of Vitamin D likely not assumed not available to Europeans. Fact is, Inuits and Yupiks had an ample source of ready available vitamin D that did not require them to need whale hide for this purpose. From my understanding of their diets, they required whales for much more, including oil, protein, as well as fat. With the availability of COD, Salmon,and other seafood these peoples evolved environmentally, as intended with natural protection mechanism intact.
^^^^^That's great you understand this, well this is similar to how Early Europeans survived. On high levels of vitamin D. Farming spread and Europeans were NOT hunter gatherers fishers and herders anymore, because they gave this lifestyle up for farming, so they didn't eat the fish and other meats they ate that contained Vitamin D. Ad Nauseummmmmmmmmm
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
. 
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
]
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic